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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 97-7079

MERRICK RALPH FALESBORK, a/k/a

Merrick, a/k/a Merc,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-91-116-N, CA-97-397-2)

Submitted: August 13, 1998

Decided: September 2, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jeffrey S. Shapiro, VERGARA & ASSOCIATES, Hopewell, Virginia; Cheryl Johns Sturm, Westtown, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.

Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order that concluded his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998),

was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 1998). Appellant's conviction became final on September 1, 1993, and he filed his habeas motion on April 21, 1997. Appellant had until April 23, 1997, to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v.

Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998)

(Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208). Therefore, his motion was not time barred.

For these reasons, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue,

vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
#### In re: BROCKWAY PRESSED METAL, INC., Debtor. Eynon Associates, Inc., Appellant v. LaSalle Bank National Association; General Motors Corporation; Borgwarner Torq Transfer Systems, Inc.; Delphi Corporation.

No. 07-2858.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on Dec. 8, 2008.

Opinion filed: Dec. 24, 2008.

Ronald L. Hicks, Jr., Joel M. Helmrich, Jason M. Yarbrough, Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant.

Beverly W. Manne, Michael A. Shiner, Tucker Arensberg, Pittsburgh, PA, for Ap-pellee.

Before: McKEE, SMITH and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

McKEE, J.

Eynon Associates, Inc. appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Eynon’s claim to funds held by LaSalle Bank. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need not repeat the procedural or factual history except insofar as may be helpful to our brief discussion.

Eynon argues that it is entitled to the disputed escrow funds pursuant to its contract for sales commissions with the debt- *115or, Broekway Pressed Metals, Inc. According to Eynon, the disputed funds are impressed with either an express or constructive trust for that portion of Brock-way’s receivables equal to the commissions Eynon earned on products that it sold and delivered to certain of Brock-way’s customers.

In a Memorandum Opinion dated March 30, 2007, Hon. Thomas P. Agresti, explained why Eynon had not established the existence of a trust. In affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying relief, the district court agreed that Eynon “failed to demonstrate two of the four required elements [of a trust] — intent to create a trust and the existence of an identifiable res.” App. 6. The district court concluded that “the series of commission agreements between the parties do not constitute ‘trust’ documents.” App. 7. The court rejected Eynon’s reliance on *Williams v. Finlaw, Mueller & Co.,*292 Pa. 244, 141 A. 47 (1928), concluding, counsel was “skating close to the bounds of their duty of candor ...,” by misstating the holding of *Williams*... ”. The bankruptcy court believed that *Williams*counseled against finding a trust had been created, and the district court concluded that “[t]he Bankruptcy Court’s analysis of *Williams,*was correct.” App. 4.

The district court also correctly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s rejection of the theory of a “constructive trust” because “no unjust enrichment had occurred.” *Id.,*(citing *Yoke v. Yohe,*466 Pa. 405, 353 A.2d 417, 420-21 (1976)). Thus, establishing a trust over the disputed funds “would have the effect of giving Eynon preferential treatment in the bankruptcy proceeding.” App. 5.

We can add little to the thorough and thoughtful discussion of the bankruptcy court, or the district court’s explanation of why the bankruptcy court properly rejected Eynon’s claim for relief.

Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the bankruptcy court and the district court.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 143 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16131]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Community Living


Notice of Federal Review of the Missouri Protection and Advocacy 
System (P&A)

AGENCY: Administration for Community Living, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Representatives of the Administration on Disabilities (AoD), 
Administration for Community Living (ACL), will be conducting a federal 
review of the Missouri Protection and Advocacy System (P&A) on 
September 13-17, 2021. AoD is soliciting comments from interested 
parties on your experiences with the program, and strategies employed 
by P&A in meeting the needs of individuals with developmental 
disabilities and their families in Missouri. You are encouraged to 
share your experiences by way of email or telephone.

DATES: Comments must be submitted electronically or via telephone by 
September 22, 2021, 11:59 p.m. (EST) in order to be included in the 
final report.
    Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d299b3a6bab7a0bbbcb7fc91b3a0b5bbbebeff85bbbebebba192b3b1befcbabaa1fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c775d4854594e555259127f5d4e5b555050116b555050554f7c5d5f501254544f125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Telephone: 202-795-7322.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Cargill-Willis, 
Administration for Community Living, Administration on Disabilities, 
330 C Street SW, 1st Floor, Washington, DC 20201, 202-795-7322.

    Dated: July 23, 2021.
Alison Barkoff,
Acting Administrator & Assistant Secretary for Aging.
[FR Doc. 2021-16131 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 10.5

8 March 2007

Private & Confidential

For Addressee Only

Mr N Duff

Entrust (Europe)
Ltd

Apex Plaza (B2)

Forbury Road

Reading Berkshire RG1 1AX

Dear Neill,

Congratulations on your promotion to the position of VP, EMEA Sales & Professional Services effective 1 March 2007. In this new position you will continue
to report to Andrew Pinder. This letter will outline the compensation parameters of your new position.

Your base salary will be increased by £7,500
to £90,000 per annum and your car allowance will increase to £800 per month. The increase will be included in Marchs pay.

In
addition to your base salary increase, you are now eligible to participate in Entrusts Sales Incentive plan. In the first year, the incentive will be equivalent to US$150,000 at 100% achievement. Please note that the incentive programs may be
amended or discounted at any time and that participation within the incentive programs is subject to signing and returning the applicable Sales Incentive Plan to Entrust. The Sales Incentive plan will be issued in under separate cover.

It is noted that with the change to the Sales Incentive Plan, you are no longer eligible to participate in Entrusts Corporate Bonus Plan.

With this promotion you also receive an additional grant of 10,000 stock options. The strike price for these options will be based on an exercise price equal to the fair
market value of Entrusts common stock at the close of business 1 March 2007 (US$4.29). This option grant will vest on the basis of twenty-five percent (25%) of the original number of shares on the first anniversary of the Grant Date
and as to an additional 1/36th of the remaining number of shares on the day of the month of the grant date for each of the next 36 months thereafter.

As a
recipient of this equity grant, you will be sent an award agreement from Computershare, which will provide you with the full details of your grant. The agreement will not come into effect unless you sign one copy each and return it to Entrust as
prescribed. Your equity grant shall be subject to your award agreement and the terms and conditions of that agreement shall prevail over all other documents.

All other terms and conditions of employment remain unchanged. Should you have any questions about your responsibilities in this role, please do not hesitate to contact Andrew Pinder or me.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish you continued success for the future.



|               
|---------------
|Yours sincerely
|               
|/s/ Ann Dougall
|Ann Dougall    
|Human Resources
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6200

JERRY BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; WARDEN, MacDougall Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (3:06-cv-03013-DCN) Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 12, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown 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
<PAGE>

                      PEOPLES-SIDNEY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peoples-Sidney Financial Corporation
(the "Corporation") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this
Certification (the "Report"), I, Debra A. Geuy, the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of the Corporation, 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 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 results of operations of the
     Corporation.




                           /s/ Debra A. Geuy
                           -----------------------------------
                           Debra A. Geuy, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

                             Date: November 8, 2002





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

                                                                             27.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-49494) pertaining to the Stock Option Agreements, the 1995 Equity
Incentive Plan, the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan,
and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-56654) pertaining to the Stock Option Agreements, the 2000 Equity
Incentive Plan and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-77052 and 333-104100) pertaining to the 2000 Equity
Incentive Plan and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-89220) pertaining to the 2000 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-107113) for the
registration of common stock, preferred stock, debt securities and warrants
with the maximum aggregate offering price of $100,000,000 of our report dated
March 3, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Transmeta
Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



San Jose, California
March 3, 2004
#### Charles Glick, Appellant, v M. A. Hittner and Sons, Inc., et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.), entered August 4, 1983, which, upon a jury verdict, was in favor of defendants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

This action arose as the result of injuries sustained in a rear-end collision. There was conflicting testimony as to whether plaintiff had been stopped at a red light for several moments when he was hit, or whether he suddenly and without proper warning stopped his car, and defendant Locerto could not avoid a collision. In such a case, the issue of credibility is properly one for the jury *(Sorokin v Food Fair Stores,*51 AD2d 592). Defendant Locerto cannot be held negligent as a matter of law because his vehicle hit plaintiff’s in the rear *(see, Nikitas v Crailo Motors Corp.,*17 AD2d 882). Viewing the evidence before the jury in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must, it cannot be said that a verdict in defendants’ favor could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence *(Matter of Kornblum Metals Co. v Intsel Corp.,*38 NY2d 376). Therefore, we may not set the jury’s verdict aside as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence *(cf. Pettersen v Curreri,*99 AD2d 774; *Goehle v Town of Smithtown,*81 AD2d 607, *affd*55 NY2d 995). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 11, 2009 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ F. William Conner  
|                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | F. William Conner      
|                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
FORM 10-Q
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
                               (Amendment No. 1)

[x]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended May 31, 1997

                                       or

[ ]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                        Commission File Number: 333-20759

                           COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS, INC.
             (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

                    Delaware                            13-3915801
          -------------------------------           -------------------
          (State or other jurisdiction of           (I.R.S. Employer
          incorporation or organization)            Identification No.)

                      7211 Circle S Road, Austin, Texas 78745
             -------------------------------------------------------
              (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

              Registrant's telephone number, including area code (512) 440-0571

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES |X| NO ___

<PAGE>

                                   Signatures:

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                                       Commemorative Brands, Inc.
                                    --------------------------------
                                       (Registrant)


Date: July 14, 1997                 By: /s/ Richard H. Fritsche
     ----------------------            -----------------------------
                                          Richard H. Fritsche
                                          Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Nushawn Williams, Also Known as Shyteek Johnson, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 30, 2003 (the "Form
10-Q") of LDM Technologies, Inc. (the "Issuer").

         I, Alan C. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify
that:

         (i)      The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                  (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

         (ii)     The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Issuer.

Dated:   May 1, 2003



                               By:  /s/ A.C. Johnson
                               ------------------------------------
                                        Alan C. Johnson
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        LDM Technologies, Inc.


















                                       25
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ZACHARY TAYLOR ZEMAN,

Appellants,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-2995

[March 7, 2018]

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

Beach County; Jeffrey J. Colbath, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2006-CF001948-BXXX-MB.

Robert A. Herce of Herce & Herce, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s motion 

for postconviction relief and remand for further proceedings. We agree 

with appellant that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claim of 

newly discovered evidence without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See 

Nordelo v. State, 93 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 2012). We express no opinion on the 

merits.

Reversed and remanded.

GERBER, C.J., GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case: 1:03-cv-00254 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/28/04 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:181
Case: 1:03-cv-00254 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/28/04 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:182
Case: 1:03-cv-00254 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/28/04 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:183
Case: 1:03-cv-00254 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/28/04 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:184
Case: 1:03-cv-00254 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/28/04 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:185
Case: 1:03-cv-00254 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/28/04 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:186
Case: 1:03-cv-00254 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/28/04 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:187
Case: 1:03-cv-00254 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/28/04 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:188
Case: 1:03-cv-00254 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/28/04 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:189
Case: 1:03-cv-00254 Document #: 28 Filed: 01/28/04 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:190
S. Con. Res. 55 Agreed to August 1, 2012

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1627) an Act to 

amend title 38, United States Code, to furnish hospital care and 

medical services to veterans who were stationed at Camp Lejeune, 

North Carolina, while the water was contaminated at Camp 

Lejeune, to improve the provision of housing assistance to veterans 

and their families, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives shall make the following correction: in section 

201, strike ‘‘Andrew Connelly’’ and insert ‘‘Andrew Connolly’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.