alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH A. WEBB,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY U.S. ARMY,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 55652

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 08807

- SVW

- SS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8 , 2017 **

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN , Circuit Judges.

Kenneth A. Webb appeals pro se from the dis trict court’s order dismissing

his action against the Secretary of the United States Army. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6)

. Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010)

. We affirm in part,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclu des this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 55652

vacate in part, and remand

.

The district court properly dismissed Webb’s action because Webb failed to

allege facts sufficient to show that he had exhausted his administrative remedies or

was excused from exhaustion

. See Muhammad v. Sec ’ y of Army , 770 F.2d 1494,

1495 (9th Cir. 1985) (military personnel are required to exhaust available

intraservice remedies before seeking judicial review); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal

,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (complaint must offer more than “naked asserti ons

devoid of further factual enhancement” (citation, internal quotation marks, and

alterations omitted) )

. Because a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies should be without prejudice, see O’Guinn v. Lovelock Co rr. Ct r

. , 502

F.3d 1056, 1 063 (9th Cir. 2007 ) , we vacate the judgment in part and remand for the

district court to dismiss Webb’s action without prejudice.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE FILINGS OF 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,322,953
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,484,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,500
<INVENTORY>                                  1,487,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,426,088
<PP&E>                                         615,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                 152,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,946,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,427,741
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,229,740
<OTHER-SE>                                   (721,787)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,507,953
<SALES>                                      2,328,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,328,104
<CGS>                                        1,618,656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,589,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (238,480)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (238,480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (238,480)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 21 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JEAN DENNY, Class action for Motorhome Owners in Sandia Heights, Unit 3, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SANDIA HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; COUNTY OF BERNALILLO; COUNTY OF SANTA FE; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; SUSAN CARLOW, Covenant Committee member; TED BACA, Honorable, Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-2253 (D.C. No. CIV-99-310-DJS) (New Mexico)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BALDOCKand HENRY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Th e cause is-2-

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Jean Denny brought this pro se civil rights action against the Sandia Heights Homeowners Association, an individual membe r of that association, Bernalillo and Santa Fe Counties, and the New Mexic o Court of Appeals alleging civil rights violations arising from a civil action brought against her in state court. In the state proceeding, the state district court f ound that Ms. Denny’s motor home was in violation of restrictive covenants cove ring her subdivision and permanently enjoined her from parking the motor hom e on her property. The decision was affirmed by the state Court of Appeals . In this federal action, Ms. Denny asserts that the state suit against her was i llegal on several grounds, as well as a denial of equal protection and due process. Upon consent of the parties, the matter was heard b y a magistrate judge, who dismissed the action for lack of subject matterjurisdiction under the RookerFeldman doctrine. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See U.S. West Inc. v. Tristani , 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999). We have carefully reviewed the record and the reaso ning and authorities relied on by the magistrate judge. We affirm substantially o n the grounds set forth in the memorandum opinion and order dismissing the action. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
|   | (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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  /s/      Peter      Wiget                                         |
| PETER      WIGET                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Chief      Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| March      16, 2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
9 sant Oe Form (0697)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

¥

at
Name of Assigned Judge James B. Moran Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 1363 DATE 6/22/2001
CASE King Vision Pay Per View, Ltd. Vs. Singleton Corp. etc. et al.
TITLE
[in the following box (2) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the
MOTION: nature of the motion being presented.)
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
() o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Qo Brief in support of motion due
(3) o Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Qo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at_
(2) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) (General Rule 21 CFRCP41(a)(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) Mi [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff moves for default judgment.
That motion is granted. We award statutory damages of $8,750 and attorneys’ fees of $500.
(11) «ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. ;
umber of waioes

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

JUN 2.5 2068

date docketed

sar ordain

Notified counsel by telephone.

Y_| Docketing to mail notices.

Y_ | Mail A450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed noti
courtroom lato mailed notice

deputy’s
initials

WAH

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office

railing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS tet to: pi
EASTERN DIVISION Hin os
BUN 2 & agg:
KING VISION PAY PER VIEW, LTD.,
a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs. No. 01 C 1363

SUN 25 200

SINGLETON CORP., an Illinois
corporation d/b/a Warehouse Lounge,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
and ELIJAH SINGLETON, individually, )
)
)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants have failed to respond to an action claiming that they wilfully and without
authorization displayed a closed-circuit telecast of the Holyfield v. Lewis prizefight. Plaintiff
moves for default judgment. That motion is granted.

Plaintiff also moves for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. The report indicates
that approximately 40 patrons were in the establishment. Plaintiff assumes a capacity of 150,
the license fee was $17.50 times the capacity, and plaintiff asks for a multiplier of seven, for
a total of $18,375. While a multiple is necessary to serve as a deterrent, we think a factor of
five is adequate for that purpose. And we think it improbable that the bar was less than a :
third full in the circumstances. A capacity figure estimate of 100 is, we think, generous. We

award statutory damages of $8,750 and attorneys’ fees of $500,

JAMES } MORAN

ior Judge, U. S. District Court

2, 1999.

—

5
# Official Journal C 26/24 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 26 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6124 January 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 26

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6124 January 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2018/C 26/01 | Report pursuant to Article 92(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on any contingent liabilities (whether for the Single Resolution Board, the Council, the Commission or otherwise) arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council and the Commission of their tasks under this Regulation for the financial year 2016, together with the replies of the Single Resolution Board, the Council and the Commission | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Auditors

2018/C 26/01

Report pursuant to Article 92(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on any contingent liabilities (whether for the Single Resolution Board, the Council, the Commission or otherwise) arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council and the Commission of their tasks under this Regulation for the financial year 2016, together with the replies of the Single Resolution Board, the Council and the Commission

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ELIZABETH MARTINEZ ) 

xxx xx 5563 ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff ) 

 ) 

vs. ) No. 02 cv 2354 

 ) Magistrate Judge Martin C. Ashman 

JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner ) 

of Social Security ) 

 ) 

 Defendant ) 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 

42 U.S.C. Sec. 406(b) 

NOW COMES counsel for plaintiff, Ashley S. Rose, and moves this Court to enter 

judgment in favor of counsel’s Petition for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 

406(b) filed on 7.14.08 and states as follows: 

1. This Court previously ordered defendant to respond to the Petition for Fees on or 

before 8.19.08; plaintiff to reply on or before 8.29.08. 

2. Defendant has not filed his Response. 

3. To minimize delay in the Agency’s disbursing funds being held for plaintiff, judgment 

should enter. 

Wherefore, counsel for plaintiff prays this Court to enter judgment in his favor in 

accordance with the Petition and Memorandum previously filed herein. A proposed 

order is filed herewith as an attachment. 

/s/ Ashley S. Rose

 Ashley S. Rose, Counsel for Plaintiff 

 LAW OFFICE OF ASHLEY S. ROSE 

 799 Roosevelt Rd., Bldg. 6, Ste. 104 

 Glen Ellyn, IL. 60137 

 630/790-9066
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 6492** 

ANTHONY LEON HOOVER, a/k/a Anthony Leon Hoover El; TERRENCE LEROY WRIGHT EL, as Moorish American Nationals ,
Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
and

SAMUEL JUNIOR JACKSON; NAPOLEON J. RANKIN BEY; JAMES LEE TROXLER EL; ERRICK L. BOWE; WEBSTER WALLER, a/k/a Webster Waller Bey; MICHAEL HOLLIDAY; JAMES K. HOYLE BEY; MAURICE HARTGROVE ,
Plaintiffs ,

v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Sub Jurisdiction Counties; NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR TMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:14

- ct

- 03220

- F )

Submitted : September 9 , 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Anthony Leon Hoover; Terrence Leroy Wright, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Anthony Leon Hoover and Terrence Leroy Wright El appeal the

district court ’ s order dismissing their complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (20 12 ). We have reviewed the record and
find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v.

North Carolina , No. 5:14

- ct

- 03220

- F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2015)

. We dispense with oral argum ent because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ex_262346.htm


Exhibit 10.8


 


AMENDMENT No. 2


to the EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 2 (“Amendment”) is entered into as of October 31, 2020 (“Amendment Effective Date”) by and between CYTOCOM, INC. a Delaware corporation (“CYTOCOM”) and Peter Aronstam, the “Executive”. CYTOCOM and Executive are each referred to individually as a “Party” and together as the “Parties”.


 


WHEREAS, CYTOCOM and Executive are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement with an effective date of May 1, 2020 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties mutually desire to amend, modify and restate certain terms and conditions of the Agreement regarding equity compensation.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, it is mutually agreed as follows:


 


	
			1.

				
			DEFINITIONS. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized words in this Amendment shall have the meaning attributed to them in the Agreement.

			



 


	
			2.

				
			AMENDMENTS. The Parties agree that, as of the Amendment Effective Date, the Agreement is amended as set forth in this Section 2.

			



 


	
			2.1

				
			The time period of six (6) months identified in each of Sections 4.1(d)(ii)(A), 4.1(d)(ii)(B), 4.1(e)(ii)(A), and 4.1(e)(ii)(B) is hereby amended to recite that each of such time periods is twelve (12) months.

			



 


	
			3.

				
			INTEGRATION. Except for the sections of the Agreement specifically amended hereunder, all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain and shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment shall hereafter be incorporated into and deemed part of the Agreement and any future reference to the Agreement shall include the terms and conditions of this Amendment.

			



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties intending to be bound have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.


 


	CYTOCOM, INC.	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Michael Handley 	 	By:	/s/ Peter Aronstam
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:	Michael Handley	 	Name:	Peter Aronstam
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:	CEO	 	Title:	CFO



                     


 


 


	Version: 30 October 2020	Page 1 of 1
<PAGE> 1
Exhibit 10.33.

                FIRST AMENDMENT TO STOCKHOLDERS AGREEMENT

  THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO STOCKHOLDERS AGREEMENT (this "Amendment"), dated as
of September 23, 1996, is entered into by and among Crain Holdings Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") and the security holders listed on the
signature pages hereof (the "Holders").

                              WITNESSETH

  WHEREAS, the Company and the security holders of the Company have executed
and delivered that certain Stockholders Agreement, dated as of August 29, 1995
(the "Stockholders Agreement");

  WHEREAS, as of the date hereof the Holders own more than 66 2/3% of the
aggregate number of outstanding shares of Common Stock and Class A Common
Stock (taken together as a class) subject to the Stockholders Agreement; and

  WHEREAS, clause (iv) of Section 4.1.2 of the Stockholders Agreement contains
a typographical error and the Company and the Holders desire to correct such
error pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.7.2 of the Stockholders
Agreement.

  NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

  1.  Certain Definitions.  Unless otherwise defined herein, terms used herein
with their initial letter capitalized shall have the meanings given such terms
in the Stockholders Agreement.

  2.  Amendment to Section 4.1.2.  Clause (iv) of Section 4.1.2 of the
Stockholders Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety as follows (amended
terms are underlined for identification):

    "(iv) issuances or sales of Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents
pursuant to a registered underwritten public offering, a merger of the Company
or a subsidiary of the Company into or with another entity or an acquisition
by the Company or  subsidiary of the Company of another business or
corporation or".

  3.  Counterparts.  This amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of
which, when executed and delivered shall be an original, but all of which
shall be together one and the same instrument.

  4.  Governing Law.  THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND
CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, WITHOUT REGARD TO
PRINCIPLES OF CONFLICTS OF LAW.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly
executed, all as of the date first above written.

        CRAIN HOLDING CORP.

        By:  s/Ellen Lipsitz
            Name:  Ellen Lipsitz
            Title:    Vice President

        HICKS, MUSE, TATE & FURST EQUITY
        FUND II, L.P.

        By:  HM2/GP Partners, L.P.,
             as General Partner

        By:  Hicks, Muse GP Partners, L.P.,
             its General Partner

        By:  Hicks, Muse Fund II
             Incorporated,
             its General Partner

                By:  s/J.D. Furst
                    Name:  J.D. Furst
                    Title:    Managing Director, Principal
Exhibit
32.2








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 on Form 10-Q of Franklin Street Properties
Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, John G. Demeritt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to his
knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the
      Company.










Date:  November
      3, 2009
            /s/ John G.
      Demeritt
              John
      G. Demeritt
              Chief
      Financial Officer
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

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Caremark Rx, Inc. (the "Corporation")
for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,
certifies that:



|/s/E. MAC CRAWFORDE. Mac Crawford
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2003 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

---

QuickLinks