alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50181 Conference Calendar

GARY STANBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus A. BRYANT, Dentist; M. HILL, Field Lt.; J.L. CRAIG, Case Manager, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CV-40

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gary Stanberry, #298298, appeals the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit on the ground that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, arguing that the
defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and subjected him to working conditions that were inappropriate in light of his medical condition. We haveNo. 96-50181 - 2 - reviewed the record and briefs and AFFIRM the magistrate judge’s dismissal for essentially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge. Stanberry v. A. Bryant Et Al. , No. W-95-CA-040 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 1996). Stanberry’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution appellant that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, appellant is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively,
certify that, to the best of their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary at the dates and
for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall
not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|             |  |  |  |                                      
|------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|May 11, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.           
|Date         |  |  |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and
|             |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|             |  | 
|             |  |  |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                  
|May 11, 2006 |  |  |  | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary,          
|Date         |  |  |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New-York, Respondent, v Rosina Paul, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Kessler, J.), rendered November 23, 1982, convicting her of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that the hearing court erred in failing to suppress inculpatory statements made at her arraignment after she had previously requested an attorney upon being given her *Miranda*rights. The Town Justice had not been *747advised of this request. During the reading of the complaint by the Town Justice, which made reference to an intent to kill, defendant blurted out in Creole to the interpreter that "I did not intend to kill anyone, I just wanted to hurt him”. Defendant was not responding to a question and it cannot be said that her statements were "triggered by any police conduct which should have reasonably been anticipated to evoke a declaration from the defendant” *(People v North,*81 AD2d 944; *People v Lynes,*49 NY2d 286, 295).

The facts that defendant was 17 years of age at the time she committed the crime of which she was convicted, spoke little English and might have had limited intellectual abilities do not constitute circumstances so unusual as to warrant suppression of her spontaneous admission at the arraignment *(see, People v Maerling,*46 NY2d 289, 302-303).

Finally, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, we reject defendant’s contention that a single ambiguous reference to her failure to take the stand made in the prosecutor’s summation constituted reversible error. Any error was harmless since there was no reasonable possibility that the comment might have contributed to her conviction *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Appeals Melvin Curtis, Appellant.

by defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered June 24, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 24, 1983, adjudicating him in violation of probation, and imposing sentence. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress statements.

*733Judgment and amended judgment affirmed.

The record discloses that defendant’s arrest was supported by probable cause. Moreover, the hearing court did not err in concluding that, under the circumstances, defendant had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent before making statements to the police *(see, North Carolina v Butler,*441 US 369, 373). At trial, defendant’s guilt under indictment No. 1565/82 was overwhelmingly established *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*— US —, 105 S Ct 327; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620).

Defendant further contends that he was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender because, upon entering his plea to the predicate felony, he was not informed during the allocution of his right to remain silent. The sentencing court at bar, however, properly determined that defendant had knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the predicate felony *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). We have reviewed defendant’s other claims and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
* 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. 97-30242

Summary Calendar

 

EARL LEE BALLENGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR. Sheriff,

Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s Office;

DONALD NIDES, Detective,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2136-N

- - - - - - - - - -

November 24, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Earl Lee Ballenger, Louisiana prisoner # 370855, proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the dismissal of his

civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Sheriff Charles

Foti and Detective Donald Nides. The case proceeded to a bench

trial before the magistrate judge on the consent of the parties.

Ballenger asserts that the magistrate judge erred in

dismissing his claim against Detective Nides for illegal arrest
No. 97-30242

-2-

and in dismissing his claim against Sheriff Foti for failing to

give him an appearance before a judicial officer within 72 hours

of his arrest. Ballenger asserts that the magistrate judge

lacked jurisdiction to rule on his motion for a default judgment,

and he raises various other claims related to the magistrate

judge’s treatment of pretrial and trial matters. Ballenger also

asserts that the magistrate judge did not allow him to present

his claim for illegal detention.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the

parties, and we AFFIRM the dismissal of Ballenger’s complaint for

essentially the same reasons articulated by the magistrate judge. 

See Ballenger v. Pennington, No. 96-2136 (E.D. La. Feb. 26,

1997). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)



The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively, certify that, to the best of their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary at the dates and for the periods indicated.



The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any
obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|November 10, 2005 |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.           
|Date              |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|                  | 
|November 10, 2005 |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                  
|Date              |  | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary,          
|                  |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
734 A.2d 1283

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Gary Paul HANEY, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 3, 1999.

Decided Sept. 9, 1999.

Joseph C. Madenspacher, Dist. Atty., Susan E. Moyer, Asst. Dist. Atty., District Attorney’s Office, for Com.

James J. Karl, Chief Public Defender, Public Defender’s Office, for Gary Paul Haney.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our disposition in *Commonwealth v. Williams,*557 Pa. 285, 733 A.2d 593 (1999), we affirm the Order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas dated October 21, 1998. Furthermore, we remand the matter to the common pleas court for disposition of any remaining issues.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.
# Delegation of Authority Under Section 1285 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020

# Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense the authority and functions vested in the President by section 1285(a) through (e) of Public Law 116-92 on the use of military force and support of partner forces to the Congress.

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2021-15956

Billing code 5001-06-P
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 383 

Designating February 29, 2012, as ‘‘Rare Disease Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself and Mr. BARRASSO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating February 29, 2012, as ‘‘Rare Disease Day’’. 

Whereas rare diseases and disorders are those diseases and 

disorders that affect a small patient population, which in 

the United States is typically a population of fewer than 

200,000 people; 

Whereas, as of the date of approval of this resolution, nearly 

7,000 rare diseases affect 30,000,000 people and their 

families in the United States; 

Whereas children with rare genetic diseases account for more 

than half of the population affected by rare diseases in 

the United States; 

Whereas many rare diseases are life-threatening and lack an 

effective treatment; 

Whereas rare diseases and disorders include epidermolysis 

bullosa, progeria, sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 383 ATS 

cystic fibrosis, many childhood cancers, and 

fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva; 

Whereas people with a rare disease experience challenges that 

include difficulty in obtaining an accurate diagnosis, limited treatment options, and difficulty finding a physician 

or treatment center with expertise in the disease; 

Whereas great strides have been made in research and treatment for rare diseases as a result of the Orphan Drug 

Act (21 U.S.C. 360aa et seq.); 

Whereas both the Food and Drug Administration and the 

National Institutes of Health have established special offices to advocate for rare disease research and treatments; 

Whereas the National Organization for Rare Disorders, an 

organization established in 1983 to provide services to, 

and advocate on behalf of, patients with rare diseases, 

was a primary force behind the enactment of the Orphan 

Drug Act and remains a critical public voice for people 

with rare diseases; 

Whereas the National Organization for Rare Disorders sponsors Rare Disease Day in the United States to increase 

public awareness of rare diseases; 

Whereas Rare Disease Day has become a global event that 

occurs annually on the last day of February; 

Whereas Rare Disease Day was observed in the United 

States for the first time on February 28, 2009; and 

Whereas Rare Disease Day is expected to be observed globally in years to come, providing hope and information for 

rare disease patients around the world: Now, therefore, 

be it 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 383 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates February 29, 2012, as ‘‘Rare 

3 Disease Day’’; 

4 (2) recognizes the importance of improving 

5 awareness and encouraging accurate and early diag6 nosis of rare diseases and disorders; and 

7 (3) supports the commitment of the United 

8 States and all countries to improving access to, and 

9 developing, new treatments, diagnostics, and cures 

10 for rare diseases and disorders. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
10.1


 


SECOND
AMENDMENT TO


RED ROBIN
GOURMET BURGERS, INC.


EMPLOYEE
STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


 


1.                                       The Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Red
Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), was approved by the
Board of Directors on July 13, 2002, and submitted for approval by the
Company’s stockholders, and approved, on July 13, 2002 (the “Original
Plan”), and amended by that certain First Amendment to Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, effective as of August 4,
2009 (as amended, the “Plan”).


 


2.                                       This Second Amendment to Red Robin
Gourmet Burgers, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (this “Second Amendment”) was approved by the
Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors on December 21,
2009.  Capitalized terms not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.


 


3.                                       The following new Section 4(b) shall
be added to the Plan, effective with respect to Offering Periods beginning on
or after January 1, 2010:


 


(b)                                 The maximum number of Shares that any one
individual may acquire upon exercise of his or her Option with respect to any
one Offering Period is 750, subject to adjustments pursuant to Section 17
(the “Individual Limit”); provided, however,
that the Committee may amend such Individual Limit, effective no earlier than
the first Offering Period commencing after the adoption of such amendment,
without stockholder approval.  The
Individual Limit shall be proportionately adjusted for any Offering Period of
less than six months, and may, at the discretion of the Committee, be
proportionately increased for any Offering Period of greater than six months.


 


4.                                       In addition, all references to the term
“Individual Limit” and to Section 4(b) contained in the Original Plan
shall be reinstated, effective with respect to Offering Periods beginning on or
after January 1, 2010.


 


5.                                       Except as provided in this Second
Amendment, the Plan shall remain unchanged and continue in full force and
effect.


 


[Signature page follows.]


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Second Amendment has been executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company
as of the date specified below and effective as set forth herein.


 


	
   

  	
  RED ROBIN GOURMET
  BURGERS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Annita M. Menogan

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Annita M. Menogan

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Legal
  Officer

  
	
   

  	
  Dated:
  December 21, 2009

  



 


2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
financial statements accompanying the filings of Form 10-QSB and is qualified 
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          99,702
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,267,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                    577,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,971,661
<PP&E>                                         262,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,821,546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,444,964
<BONDS>                                        796,042
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     468,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,821,546
<SALES>                                      1,623,856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,629,339
<CGS>                                        1,129,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,591,085
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,022
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,232
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,684
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,548
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,548
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 10.2
 Executive Officer Compensation Summary
August 08, 2005
     
    
    Mr. Hickey. The Committee approved a 4% increase in Mr. Hickeys base salary, as
well as an 8.8% increase in the current dollar value of stock options granted to him.
As a result of these increases, Mr. Hickeys base salary is now $457,000 and the
current dollar value of stock options granted to him in July 2005 (as of the date of
grant) was $2,000,000. All such options were fully vested on the date of grant.
Regarding Mr. Hickeys options, so long as he remains employed with the Company until
July 17, 2008, he will be permitted to continue to exercise his options for their full
10 year term.
    
    Mr. Schmidt. The Committee approved a 4% increase in Mr. Schmidts base salary, as
well as a 4.8% increase in the current dollar value of stock options granted to him.
As a result of these increases, Mr. Schmidts base salary is now $298,116 and the
current dollar value of stock options granted to him in July 2005 (as of the date of
grant) was $220,000. All such options were fully vested on the date of grant. The
Committee also approved a cash bonus for Mr. Schmidt of up to 100% of his base salary.
The measurement period for calculating the bonuses payable to Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Minch
under the Incentive Bonus Plan, formerly a calendar year period, was changed to the
period from July 1 to June 30;
as a result, the Incentive Bonus Plan was not effective for them for the period from
January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005.
    
    Ms. Minch. The Committee approved an 8% increase in Ms. Minchs base salary. As a
result of this increase, Ms. Minchs base salary is now $165,780. The Committee also
approved a cash bonus for Ms. Minch of up to 70% of her base salary. In addition, the
Committee granted a stock option to Ms. Minch in July 2005 with a current dollar value
of approximately $40,000 (which was fully vested on the date of grant) and granted a
restricted stock award to Ms. Minch in July 2005 of 987 shares of common stock (which
is subject to a four year vesting period, vesting 25% per year beginning one year from
date of the initial award).
    
    Mr. Paul. The Committee made no changes to the base salary of Mr. Paul, which remains at $250,000.
    
    Ms. Paul. The Committee made no changes to the base salary of Ms. Paul, which remains at $175,000.