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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6304

ROBERT LEE WALSH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DISTRICT COURT, Clerk of 

Charleston Division; MILDRED L. RIVERA, Warden FCI Estill,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. 

(8:10-cv-00085-RMG)

Submitted: April 6, 2012 Decided: April 13, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Walsh, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Walsh, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and dismissing Walsh’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 

2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. Walsh has also filed a motion to 

supplement his informal brief. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant in part and 

deny in part his motion to supplement his informal brief and 

affirm the district court’s judgment.* Walsh v. United States, 

No. 8:10-cv-00085-RMG (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2010). 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.

AFFIRMED

 * Absent exceptional circumstances, this court generally 

does not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. 

Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
Letter Agreement dated as of  December 9, 2008



 Exhibit 10.1 
 

 
 Lisbon, 09 December, 2008 
 Dear Miguel: 
 Following the conversations held, this letter confirms the terms and conditions which will apply to your contract with Euronext
Lisbon as from December 31, 2008. All conditions laid down in your contract with Euronext Lisbon, dated January 26, 2005, as modified from time to time, remain applicable unless otherwise amended by the terms and conditions outlined below.
All conditions laid down in Euronext’s internal policies as modified or re-enacted from time to time and any subordinate regulation made under the Euronext policies’ provision at any time and from time to time will apply unless otherwise
amended in this letter. 
 The terms and conditions are as follows: 
 Term: your contract is hereby extended for a period of 12 (twelve) months, commencing on December 31, 2008, and shall be renewable thereafter for equal periods of 12 (twelve) months, unless terminated as set forth in its
sections 5 and 7. 
 We look forward to receiving your agreement to the contents of this letter and to your continuing support and contribution in the
year(s) ahead. 
 Yours sincerely, 
 I hereby
declare my agreement to the entire contents of this letter and accordingly accept the terms and conditions outlined above. 
 Lisbon,
09 December 2008 
  

					
			
	 	 		 	/s/ Miguel Athayde Marques
		 		 	Miguel Athayde Marques

  

					
			
	/s/ Philippe Duranton	 		 	12/9/08
	Philippe Duranton, Group EVP & Head of Global HR	 		 	Date

  

					
			
	/s/ Jean Francois-Theodore	 		 	12/9/08
	Jean Francois-Theodore, Deputy CEO & Director	 		 	Date

  

					
			
	/s/ Duncan L. Niederauer	 		 	12/9/08
	Duncan L. Niederauer, CEO & Director	 		 	Date
EXHIBIT 99.14

                           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  Annual  Report  of  Premium  Enterprises,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KT/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Terry  Eilers,  President  and CEO of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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/ Terry Eilers
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Terry Eilers, President/CEO

Dated:  5/21/03
Sixth Amendment to 2000 Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.22 
 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO 
 BJ SERVICES COMPANY 2000 INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, BJ Services Company (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the BJ Services Company 2000 Incentive Plan (the “Plan”);

 WHEREAS, the Plan has heretofore been amended by five separate amendments, two of which were adopted on March 22, 2001 and the
remainder adopted on October 15, 2001; July 28, 2005; and December 7, 2006; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend
the Plan in certain additional respects; 
 NOW THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of October 13, 2008:

  

	 	1.	Paragraph 3(c)(ii) of Article II and paragraph 3(c)(ii) of Article III shall be amended to read as follows: 

 “through tendering to the Company shares of Common Stock already owned by the person (provided that the Company may, upon confirming that the person
owns the number of share being tendered, issue a new certificate for the number of shares being acquired pursuant to the exercise of the option less the number of shares being tendered upon the exercise and return to the person (or not require
surrender of) the certificate for the shares being tendered upon exercise),”
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1
     
     
                                   FAROUDJA, INC.
                   STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                       (In thousands, except per share data)
                                          
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                       1998                    1997
                                                       ----------------------------
     <S>                                               <C>                  <C>

     NET INCOME                                        $     8               $  249
                                                       -------               ------
                                                       -------               ------
     BASIC:
     Computation of weighted average common
      shares outstanding:

     Weighted average common shares outstanding         12,079                8,200
                                                       -------               ------
                                                       -------               ------
       
     Net income per share                                 $.00                 $.03
                                                       -------               ------
                                                       -------               ------

     DILUTED:

     Computation of weighted average common
      and common equivalent shares outstanding:

     Weighted average common shares outstanding         12,079                8,200

     Common equivalent shares from stock
      options and warrants                                 687                  854
                                                       -------               ------
     Shares used in per share computation               12,766                9,054
                                                       -------               ------
                                                       -------               ------
       
     Net income per share                                 $.00                 $.03
                                                       -------               ------
                                                       -------               ------
</TABLE>

                                       17
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, and Josephine E. Balfe, Appellant.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

We hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, to the
best of our knowledge, complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Unified Financial Services, Inc.

                                           /s/ John S. Penn
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John S. Penn
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



                                           /s/ Thomas G. Napurano
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Thomas G. Napurano
                                           Chief Financial Officer

May 12, 2004

         This certificate accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

                                      -26-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JULIE ELLEN EHLI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADlVIINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

6: l 5-cv-00229-PK 

ORDER AW ARD ING 

ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO THE 

EQUAL ACCESS TO ruSTICE ACT 

Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, it is hereby 

ordered that EAJA attorney's fees of $6150.00 shall be awarded to Plaintiff. If it is determined 

that Plaintiffs EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under the Depatiment of the 

Treasury's Offset Program, as discussed inAstrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), then the 

check for EAJA fees shall be made payable to Max Rae, based upon Plaintiffs assignment of 

these amounts to Plaintiffs attorney. Any check for EAJA fees shall be mailed to Plaintiffs 

counsel, Max Rae, at PO Box 7790palem, OR 97303-0175. 

DATED this / ;L day of August, 2016 

PRE~TEK 

MAJ(~ OSB# 81344 

(503) 363-5424 

Unit~ 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Julie Ellen Ehli 

Page I. ORDER AW ARD ING EAJA ATTORNEY FEES - EHLI v. COMMISSIONER, 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 6:15-cv-00229-PK 

Case 6:15-cv-00229-PK Document 35 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CORWIN DELANO ORR, 

Plaintiff, No. 3:14-cv-00898-AC

v. 

 

DERRICK PETERSON and ORDER

S. NEELY,

 Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [27] on April 9, 2015, 

in which he recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [20].

The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were 

timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 

1 – ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-00898-AC Document 29 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 2
840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate 

Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de 

novo, I find no error.

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings & Recommendation [27], and 

therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [20] is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2015.

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

2 – ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-00898-AC Document 29 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2
#### Naima Dayan, Appellant, v Gary M. Darche, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 735]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 2, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action, and (2) an order of the same court dated January 4, 2012, which denied her motion for leave to renew her opposition to the defendant’s motion.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

To avoid dismissal of the action for failure to serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a potentially meritorious cause of action *(see Perez-Faringer v Heilman,*79 AD3d 837, 838 [2010]; *Gibbons v Court Officers’ Benevolent Assn. of Nassau County,*78 AD3d 654, 654 [2010]; *Pristavec v Galligan,*32 AD3d 834, 834 [2006]; *Maldonado v Suffolk*County, 23 AD3d 353, 353-354 [2005]). Here, the plaintiff failed to proffer any excuse for her lengthy delay in serving the complaint. Furthermore, she failed to establish that she had a potentially meritorious cause of action *(see generally Rosner v Paley,*65 NY2d 736, 738 [1985]; *Allen v Potruch,*282 AD2d 484, 484-485 [2001]; *Iannacone v Weidman,*273 AD2d 275, 276-277 [2000]; *Rubinberg v Walker,*252 AD2d 466, 467 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

In addition, the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew her opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action was properly denied. In support of her motion, the plaintiff proffered her attorney’s affirmation in an attempt to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint. However, the attorney’s affirmation, which, inter alia, proffered an unsubstantiated excuse of disabling illnesses, was insufficient to warrant a change of the prior determination *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] *709[2]; *Cynan Sheetmetal Prods., Inc. v B.R. Fries & Assoc., Inc.,*83 AD3d 645, 646 [2011]; *Mattera v Capric,*54 AD3d 827, 828 [2008]; *Borgia v Interboro Gen. Hosp.,*90 AD2d 531 [1982], *affd*59 NY2d 802 [1983]; *Wolfe v Town of Hempstead, Dept. of Parks & Recreation,*75 AD2d 811, 812 [1980]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable justification for failing to present this affirmation in opposition to the defendant’s original motion *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; *Brown Bark I, L.P. v Imperial Dev. & Constr. Corp.,*65 AD3d 510, 512 [2009]; *Zarecki & Assoc., LLC v Ross,*50 AD3d 679, 680 [2008]; *Reshevsky v United Water N.Y., Inc.,*46 AD3d 532, 533 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### UNION SURETY & GUARANTY CO. v. GREATER NEW YORK AMUSEMENT CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by the Union Surety & Guaranty Company against the Greater New York Amusement Company and others.

No opinion. Motion granted, •on condition that appellant have its appeal ready for argument at the December term. Settle order on notice.
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sam Kraynek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this
quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;

5. The small business issuers
other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing the Equivalent functions);

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                                     |  |                
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------
|Date: November 14, 2008             
|                                     | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Sam Kraynek
|Sam Kraynek, Chief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 Consent of Independent Auditors We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-25537, 333-38302, 333-38298, and
333-113089) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan and 1996 Non-employee
Director Stock Option Plan, 2000 Employee Stock Compensation Plan, and Employee
Stock Purchase Plan and (Form S-3 Nos. 333-87721, 333-93219, 333-95353,
333-72396, 333-59954, 333-32000, 333-106068, and 333-106735 and Form S-3MEF No.
333-91499) of our report dated January 23, 2004, except for Note 19, as to
which the date is February 26, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of ILEX Oncology, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2003. /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP San Antonio, Texas
March 10, 2004
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Gary Rodney, certify that:



1. I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Catalina Lighting, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and



5. The
registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and



b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: January 13, 2005 |  | /s/    GARY RODNEY     
|                       |  | Gary Rodney            
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

MOHAMMED AHMED TAHER, et al., :

:

Petitioners, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 06-1684 (GK) 

 :

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

______________________________:

ORDER

A Status Conference was held in this case on September 21,

2009, which took place on the record and via telephone. Upon

consideration of parties’ Joint Status Report [Dkt. No. 213],

representations of the parties, and the entire record herein, it is

hereby

ORDERED, that the Government’s Opposition to Petitioner’s

Motion for Summary Judgment is due November 2, 2009. Petitioner’s

Reply, if any, is due November 9, 2009; and it is further 

ORDERED, that a Motions Hearing on Petitioner’s Motion for

Summary Judgment shall be held on November 12, 2009, at 10:15 am.

Parties shall have no more than 45 minutes each to present their

arguments, with an additional brief period of reply for Petitioner,

if necessary.

 /s/ 

September 21, 2009 Gladys Kessler

United States District Judge

Copies to: Attorneys of Record via ECF