alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6379

JERRY PAUL COOPER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA04-2704) Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 30, 2005 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Paul Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry Paul Cooper, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) motion. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cooper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-51189

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LISTON RANDOLPH POSEY, II,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-93-CR-84-ALL

--------------------

April 9, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Liston Randolph Posey, II, federal prisoner # 02528-095,

appeals the district court’s denial of his “Rule 35 Motion for

Correction of Plain Error.” Posey argues that: (1) the

forfeiture of his firearms violated his double jeopardy rights;

(2) his sentence should be vacated in view of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); (3) because the indictment did not

allege the quantity of marijuana, his conviction must be vacated

with prejudice to subsequent prosecution in view of Apprendi; and

(4) the district court erred in stating that this court affirmed
No. 00-51189 

-2-

in part and reversed in part in United States v. Posey, 217 F.3d

282 (5th Cir. 2000). The only relief that Posey sought in his

motion was an order vacating his conviction and sentence. The

district court did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief that

Posey sought as it was beyond the scope of this court’s remand

for return of Posey’s property. See United States v. Hass, 199

F.3d 749, 752 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the district court did

not err in denying Posey’s motion. The Government’s motion to

dismiss Posey’s appeal is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; ALL OTHER

OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3715 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3715

To extend the limited antitrust exemption contained in the Pandemic and 
                     All-Hazards Preparedness Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 30, 2012

    Mr. Harkin introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the limited antitrust exemption contained in the Pandemic and 
                     All-Hazards Preparedness Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LIMITED ANTITRUST EXEMPTION.

    Section 405(b) of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (42 
U.S.C. 247d-6a note) is amended by striking ``6-year'' and inserting 
``7-year''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14368]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with Title 42 of the U.S. Code of Federal 
Regulations, Section 217a, notice is hereby given that the Charter for 
the Novel and Exceptional Technology and Research Advisory Committee 
was renewed for an additional two-year period on June 30, 2021.
    It is determined that the Novel and Exceptional Technology and 
Research Advisory Committee is in the public interest in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of 
Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the 
advice and counsel of this group.
    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of 
Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892 (Mail Stop Code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7dfd6c5c5dec4d4dbf7dad6dedb99d9dedf99d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="177f7665657e64747b577a767e7b39797e7f39707861">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: June 30, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-14368 Filed 7-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.3



                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Town Sports International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
Gallagher, Vice President, Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (Section Mark)1350, as adopted pursuant to (Section Mark)906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Daniel Gallagher
Town Sports International, Inc.
Vice President, Finance
August 6, 2002
#### In the Matter of Laurie J. Muller, Appellant, v Robert J. Castagnola, Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 860]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated October 19, 2010, which, without a hearing, dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination on the petition thereafter.

In her family offense petition, the mother indicated that an order of protection against the father was due to expire, and she sought a new order of protection based upon the allegations in the petition, which, if proven true, would constitute family offenses. Thus, it was error for the Family Court to summarily deny the petition, and the court should have afforded the petitioner the opportunity to be heard with respect to her allegations *(see Matter of Little v Renz,*90 AD3d 757 [2011]; *Matter of Czaban v Czaban,*44 AD3d 937 [2007]). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination on the petition thereafter. Florio, J.P., Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 531 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 531

 To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
  any hours worked by Federal firefighters under a qualified trade-of-
   time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations 
                       relating to overtime pay.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2011

Mr. Webb (for himself and Mr. Lieberman) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
  any hours worked by Federal firefighters under a qualified trade-of-
   time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations 
                       relating to overtime pay.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF HOURS WORKED UNDER TRADE-OF-TIME ARRANGEMENTS.

    Section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any 
hours worked by a firefighter under a qualified trade-of-time 
arrangement shall be disregarded for purposes of any determination 
relating to eligibility for or the amount of any overtime pay under 
this section.
    ``(2) For purposes of this subsection--
            ``(A) the term `qualified trade-of-time arrangement' means 
        an arrangement under which 2 firefighters who are employed by 
        the same agency agree, solely at the option of the firefighters 
        and with the approval of the agency employing the firefighters, 
        to substitute for one another during scheduled work hours in 
        performance of work in the same capacity; and
            ``(B) the term `firefighter' means--
                    ``(i) a firefighter, as defined in section 
                8331(21); and
                    ``(ii) a firefighter, as defined in section 
                8401(14).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### PHILLIPS v. BROOKLYN UNION ELEVATED R. CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department

October 4, 1907.)

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.

Action by John E. Phillips against the Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and HOOKER, RICH, MILLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment modified by reducing the amount of damages to two-fifths of the sum allowed, with a proportionate reduction of the extra allowance, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, on the authority of Wells v. Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad Company and Another (decided herewith) 106 N. Y. Supp. 77.
2014-Q4 Exhibit 10.10 Severance




Exhibit 10.10




The following current executive officers have entered into Executive Severance Agreements with the Company in the form filed herewith. The information listed below is inserted into the blanks for the respective executive officer’s Executive Severance Agreement.
	
							
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Salary Multiplier
	 
	 
	 
	Change of Control

	 
	 
	Rate
	 
	Termination Period
	 
	Continuation Period

	 
	 
	(Section 4(a)(4))
	 
	(Section 1(n))
	 
	(Section 2)

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Blake W. Krueger
	 
	3
	 
	3 years
	 
	36 months

	Ted S. Gedra
	 
	2
	 
	2 years
	 
	24 months

	Donald T. Grimes
	 
	2
	 
	2 years
	 
	24 months

	James D. Zwiers
	 
	2
	 
	2 years
	 
	24 months
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 592 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to remove the cap on punitive 

damages established by the Supreme Court in Exxon Shipping Company 

v. Baker. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 16, 2011 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. LEAHY, and 

Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to remove the cap 

on punitive damages established by the Supreme Court 

in Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Maritime Liability 

5 Fairness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 592 IS

1 (1) in the case styled Exxon Shipping Co. v 

2 Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008), the Supreme Court 

3 held that when reviewing jury awards for punitive 

4 damages under maritime law, courts should limit the 

5 punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio to 1:1; 

6 (2) in that decision, the Court conceded that 

7 discretion to award punitive damages has not mass8 produced runaway awards, and although some stud9 ies show the dollar amounts of punitive-damages 

10 awards growing over time, even in real terms, by 

11 most accounts the median ratio of punitive-to-com12 pensatory awards has remained less than 1:1; 

13 (3) district and appellate courts have the au14 thority under common law to reduce excessively 

15 large punitive awards; and 

16 (4) punitive damages serve to punish reckless 

17 or worse behavior, deter future similar offenses, and 

18 compensate for intangible injuries that would not 

19 otherwise be available to 1 or more plaintiffs. 

20 SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF CAP FOR MARITIME PUNITIVE DAM21 AGES. 

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 301 of title 46, United 

23 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol24 lowing: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 592 IS

1 ‘‘§ 30107. Punitive damages in maritime law 

2 ‘‘Except as otherwise provided in this title, in a civil 

3 action for damages arising out of a maritime tort, punitive 

4 damages may be assessed without regard to the amount 

5 of compensatory damages assessed in the action.’’. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis for 

7 chapter 301 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 

8 by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘Sec. 30107. Punitive damages in maritime law.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 1999 and the consolidated statement
of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          33,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (105)
<INVENTORY>                                        926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,116
<PP&E>                                         147,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                (32,803)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,192
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           40,750
<PREFERRED>                                     22,761
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,630)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,793
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,478
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,274
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    953
<INCOME-TAX>                                       484
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                469
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       469
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 8, 2022,

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00482-CV

GERVAIS EDMONDS-WIGGINS, Appellant

V.

JONATHAN WARREN WIGGINS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 507th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-35056

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a decree of divorce signed May 31, 2022. On August 

25, 2022, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted. 

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.
Exhibit 21.1

Nextest Systems Corporation Subsidiaries



|                                          |  |                                             
|----------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Name                                      |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
|Nextest Systems Europe S.R.L.             |  | Italy                                       
|Nextest Systems (Philippines) Corporation |  | Philippines                                 
|Nextest Systems UK LTD                    |  | United Kingdom                              
|Nextest Systems France S.A.R.L.           |  | France                                      
|Nextest Systems (Thailand) Ltd            |  | Thailand                                    
|Nextest Systems Japan K.K.                |  | Japan                                       
|Nextest Systems Korea Co., Ltd.           |  | Korea
|   | (1) | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Venaxis, Inc.; |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (2) | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (3) | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:                                                                                                      |
|   | (a) | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (b)    | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation. |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

----
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14197]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-15-2021]


Termination of Review of Production Notification, Foreign-Trade 
Zone (FTZ) 31--Granite City, Illinois, M.M.O. Companies, Inc. 
(Disassembly of Firearms and Ammunition), Mascoutah and Edwardsville, 
Illinois

    On March 1, 2021, the America's Central Port District, grantee of 
FTZ 31, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the 
FTZ Board on behalf of M.M.O. Companies, Inc., within Subzone 31E, in 
Mascoutah and Edwardsville, Illinois. The notification was processed in 
accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), 
including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (86 FR 
13281-13282, March 8, 2021). On June 29, 2021, the applicant was 
notified that review of the notification is being terminated, effective 
July 9, 2021.

    Dated: June 29, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14197 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P