alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6467

KIMBERLY RENEE POOLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Warden; HENRY

MCMASTER, Attorney General for the State of

South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(0:03-cv-03499-RBH)

Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 31, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Isaac Diggs, Chief Attorney, DIGGS, DIGGS & AXELROD, Myrtle

Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kimberly Renee Poole seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal

was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

January 31, 2007. Poole’s counsel filed the notice of appeal on

March 27, 2007. Because Poole failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we 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
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 134 (Friday, July 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 37754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15102]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[Notice-MV-2021-01; Docket No. 2021-0002; Sequence 16]


Public Availability of General Services Administration Fiscal 
Year 2019 Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services 
Administration, (GSA).

ACTION: Notice of public availability of GSA Fiscal Year 2019 Service 
Contract Inventory.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with The Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, GSA is publishing this notice to advise the public 
of the availability of the FY 2019 Service Contract Inventory.

DATES: Applicable: July 16, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the Service 
Contract Inventory should be directed to Mr. Jeffrey Pitts in the 
Office of Acquisition Policy at 202-501-0712 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#422827242430273b6c322b363631022531236c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="563c33303024332f78263f2222251631253778313920">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 743 of Division C 
of the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-117), GSA 
is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of 
the Fiscal Year 2019 Service Contract Inventory. This inventory is 
available at https://www.acquisition.gov/service-contract-inventory. 
The inventory provides information on governmentwide service contract 
actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2019. The service contract 
inventory information located on acquisition.gov can be filtered by 
agency and component to show how contracted resources are distributed 
throughout any agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance 
with the guidance issued on December 19, 2011, by the Office of 
Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). 
The OFPP's guidance is available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/procurement-service-contract-inventories. GSA has posted its FY 2018 inventory analyses and its 
planned analyses of FY 2019 actions at the following location: http://www.gsa.gov/gsasci.

Jeffrey Koses,
Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of 
Governmentwide Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15102 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-61-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ISAAC R. LOPEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-13

[November 27, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Cheryl Caracuzzo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502015CF011625AXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Breanna Atwood, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10-A

<Page>

                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "AMENDMENT"), dated
and effective as of September 25, 2001, is entered into by and between Avatex
Corporation (the "COMPANY"), and John G. Murray ("EMPLOYEE").

         The Company and Employee hereby agree that this Amendment amends the
Employment Agreement dated and effective as of February 1, 1998, as amended by
the First Amendment thereto dated as of September 1, 1999, by and between the
Company and Employee (the "AGREEMENT"), as follows:

         1.   Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by changing the date
specified therein to January 31, 2004.

         2.   Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, all other terms
and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective
on the date and year first above written.


AVATEX CORPORATION
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        John G. Murray


By:
    ---------------------------
    Melvyn J. Estrin
    Co-Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



NANOGEN, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Nanogen Incorporated
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2005 (the Report), I, Robert Saltmarsh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                        
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|               |  | 
|August 9, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ ROBERT SALTMARSH   
|               |  |  |  | Robert Saltmarsh       
|               |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
EX-4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 
  






 
 NUMBER SHARES

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
SIGNATURE GROUP
HOLDINGS, INC. 
TOTAL AUTHORIZED ISSUE 
100,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $.001 EACH

SERIES B NON-PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK 
See Reverse for Certain
Definitions 
This is to Certify thant ___ is the owner of ___ fully paid and non-assessable shares of the above Corporation transferable only on the books of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 
Witness, the seal of the
Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers. 
Dated 
CRAIG
T. BOUCHARD 
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT 
W.
CHRISTOPHER MANDERSON 
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL COUNSEL AND SECRETARY

© 1999 CORPEX BANKNOTE CO., BAY SHORE N.Y. 







 



 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were
written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
TEN COM - as tenants in common UNIF TRANSFERS MIN ACT- Custodian 
(Cust)(Minor) 
TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors

Act. 
JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of (State) 
survivorship and not as tenants in common 
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not
in the above list 
For value received ___ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
(PLEASE
PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE) 
__ Shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute
and appoint 
___ Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
Dated 
In presence of 
THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “ACT”), AND ARE “RESTRICTED
SECURITIES” AS DEFINED IN RULE 144 PROMULGATED UNDER THE ACT. THE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD OR OFFERED FOR SALE OR OTHERWISE DISTRIBUTED EXCEPT (I) IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR THE SHARES UNDER THE ACT, (II) IN
COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 144 OR (III) WITH AN OPINION OF COUNSEL SATISFACTORY TO THE ISSUER AS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF ANOTHER EXEMPTION FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ACT. 
NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY
CHANGE WHATEVER.
# C_2019164EN.01002102.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 20 February 2019 — B.M.M., B.M. v État belge

(Case C-136/19)

(2019/C 164/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: B.M.M., B.M.

Defendant: État belge

Questions referred

| 1. | In order to ensure the effectiveness of EU law and not to render it impossible to benefit from the right to family reunification which, in the second applicant’s submission, is conferred on her by Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, (1) must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the sponsor’s child may enjoy the right to family reunification when he attains his majority during the judicial proceedings against the decision which refuses him that right and which was taken when he was still a minor? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In order to ensure the effectiveness of EU law and not to render it impossible to benefit from the right to family reunification which, in the second applicant’s submission, is conferred on her by Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, (1) must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the sponsor’s child may enjoy the right to family reunification when he attains his majority during the judicial proceedings against the decision which refuses him that right and which was taken when he was still a minor?

| 2. | Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding an action for annulment, brought against the refusal of a right to family reunification of a minor child, being held to be inadmissible on the ground that the child has attained his majority during the judicial proceedings, since he would be deprived of the possibility of securing a determination of his action against that decision and there would be a breach of his right to an effective remedy? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding an action for annulment, brought against the refusal of a right to family reunification of a minor child, being held to be inadmissible on the ground that the child has attained his majority during the judicial proceedings, since he would be deprived of the possibility of securing a determination of his action against that decision and there would be a breach of his right to an effective remedy?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

---
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002  This
certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report of
UTStarcom, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report).  In
connection with the Report, we, Hong Liang Lu and Francis P. Barton, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i)
  
  The Report fully complies with the requirements of
  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
  as amended; and(ii)
  
  The information contained in the Report fairly
  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
  operations of the Company.  Dated:
May 15,2008  By:
  /s/ HONG LIANG LUName: Hong Liang LuTitle: Chief Executive OfficerBy:
  /s/ FRANCIS P. BARTONName: Francis P. BartonTitle: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
  Officer
# C_2019423EN.01002901.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 15 October 2019 — T.H.C. v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-755/19)

(2019/C 423/36)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: T.H.C.

Respondent: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Question referred

Must Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (1) (recast), according to which applicants must have the right to an effective remedy against ‘a decision taken on their application for international protection’, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding a national rule of procedure, such as Article 39/57, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2, point 3o, second sentence, of the loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers (Law of 15 December 1980 on entry to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals), read in conjunction with Article 57/6, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1, point 5o, and Article 57/6/2, paragraph 1, of the same law, which fixes at five ‘calendar’ days, from the notification of the administrative decision, the time limit for bringing an action against a decision that a subsequent application for international protection by a third country national, where the ‘foreign national is located, at the time of his application, in a specific place referred to in Articles 74/8 and 74/9 [of the same Law], or is put at the disposal of the government’?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.

---
Exhibit 32

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

         I, Jinyuan Li, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of Tiens Biotech Group (USA),  Inc. for the year ended  December 31, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained  in such Annual  Report on
Form 10-KSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc.

         I,  Wenjun  Jiao,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2004,  that the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of Tiens  Biotech  Group  (USA),  Inc.  for the year ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such
Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc.

Dated: March 31, 2005

By: /s/ Jinyuan Li
   -------------------------------------
   Jinyuan Li
   President and Chief Executive Officer
   (Principal Executive Officer)

By: /s/ Wenjun Jiao
   -------------------------------------
   Wenjun Jiao
   Chief Financial Officer
   (Principal Accounting Officer)
# C_2021053EN.01003802.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard (PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD)

(Case T-863/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD - Previous EU word marks GALLIMARD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Conceptual comparison - Surnames - Independent distinctive role - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 53/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Production Christian Gallimard (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Dreyfuss-Bechmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Rusek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-A. Bénazéraf and Y. Diringer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 (Case R-2316/2018-5) regarding opposition proceedings between Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française and Production Christian Gallimard.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Production Christian Gallimard to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Production Christian Gallimard to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 583 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit direct payment 

under the Medicare program for clinical social worker services provided 

to residents of skilled nursing facilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2011 

Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit 

direct payment under the Medicare program for clinical 

social worker services provided to residents of skilled 

nursing facilities. 

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 ‘‘Clinical Social Work 

5 Medicare Equity Act of 2011’’. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 583 IS

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING DIRECT PAYMENT UNDER THE MEDI2 CARE PROGRAM FOR CLINICAL SOCIAL 

3 WORKER SERVICES PROVIDED TO RESI4 DENTS OF SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the 

6 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)) is 

7 amended by inserting ‘‘clinical social worker services,’’ 

8 after ‘‘qualified psychologist services,’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

10 1861(hh)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

11 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘and other than 

12 services furnished to an inpatient of a skilled nursing facil13 ity which the facility is required to provide as a require14 ment for participation’’. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to items and services furnished on 

17 or after the date that regulations relating to payment for 

18 physicians’ services for calendar year 2012 take effect, but 

19 in no case later than the first day of the third month be20 ginning after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00511- CV NO. 03-15-00617- CV
Diane V. Wade, Appellant

v. David’s Lan dscapin g; and David ’s Land scaping, In c., Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 419 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 3-0 0407 0, H ONO RAB LE AMY CLARK MEACH UM, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

I n response to a quer

y about the cle rk’s re cord, a ppellant Diane V. W ade informed this Court by letter dated November 1 6 , 2015 that the notice of appea l that beg an appellate cause number 03-15-00617- CV addre ssed the same summary judgme nt as the notice of appea l that beg an appellate cause number 03-15-00511- CV. I n response , this Court informed the parties that, unless they objected, the se ca

uses would be c onsolidated. No objec tion has been f iled. These appellate cause s are consolidated. The rec ord and all filings from cause number 03-15-00511- CV are consolidated into cause number 03-15-00617- CV. The consolidated appea l will procee d under c ause numbe r 03-15- 00617-CV, and cause number 03-15-00511-CV is dismiss ed.Appellee s’ motion for extension of time to file their brief is g rante d. Appellee s’ brief

is due to be filed on or

befor e F ebrua

ry 1, 2016.

Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Bour land 03-15-00511- CV Dismissed 03-15-00617- CV Consolidated Filed: January

7, 2016

2