alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Edward ALLUMS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lance PHILLIPS; Corey Furr; Blake Lamb; Lee Martinez; Wade King; Johnny English; Gregory Oliver; Debbie Erwin; John Williams; Cheryl Lawson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-40222

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 18, 2011.

John Edward Allums, Lovelady, TX, pro se.

Before JONES, Chief Judge and PRADO and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Edward Allums, Texas prisoner #578848, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as frivolous and failure to state a claim. Allums argues that he was denied due process during his disciplinary proceeding and this denial implicated his Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was placed in administrative segregation as a result of the disciplinary infraction. The dismissal of Allums complaint is reviewed de novo. *See Geiger v. Jowers,*404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir.2005).

*841Placement in administrative segregation or a change in custodial classification as a result of a disciplinary infraction, without more, does not constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest, and, therefore, there is no right to due process. *Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 485-86, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); *Martin v. Scott,*156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir.1998); *Pichardo v. Kinker,*73 F.3d 612, 612 (5th Cir.1996); *Luken v. Scott,*71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir.1995); *Meachum v. Fano,*427 U.S. 215, 225, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976). To demonstrate a liberty interest, such that due process rights are applicable, the prisoner, such as Allums, must show that the placement in administrative segregation or the change in custody status was imposed for disciplinary reasons and involves “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” *Sandin,*515 U.S. at 485-86, 115 S.Ct. 2293. Allums has not made such a showing. *See id.; Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Additionally, any assertion that state prison rules and regulations were broken in connection with AL-lums’s placement in administrative segregation do not state a constitutional claim. *See Jackson v. Cain,*864 F.2d 1235, 1252 (5th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




STATEMENT
      REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-QSB of China Digital Media
      Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Ng
      Chi Shing, Chief Executive Officer, and Lui Chi Keung, Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, certify that:




*
      the
      Report 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.






/s/
      Ng
      Chi Shing


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


Ng
      Chi
      Shing


Director,
      President and Chief Executive Officer





February
      10, 2006







/s/
      Lui
      Chi Keung


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


Lui
      Chi
      Keung


Chief
      Financial Officer





February
      13, 2006




This
      certification accompanies this 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.
Exhibit 10.2(d)



 

 

Exhibit
10.2(d)

 


JOHN R. MILLER


EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT EXTENSION

 

            THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION
(“Extension Agreement”) dated as of the 28th day of October, 2008, is made by
and between National Beef Packing Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (“National Beef”), and John R. Miller (“Executive”).

 

            WHEREAS, National
Beef entered into an employment agreement with Executive dated as of the 6th
day of August 2003 (“Employment Agreement”) under which Executive will be
employed as Chief Executive Officer of National Beef until the earlier of the
last day of the fiscal year ending on or about August 30, 2008, or such later
date as the parties may agree, or the Termination Date as defined in the
Employment Agreement;

 

            WHEREAS, the
Employment Agreement was previously extended through October 31, 2008;  

 

            WHEREAS, National
Beef and the owners of National Beef have entered into a Membership Interest
Purchase Agreement with JBS, S.A., a Brazilian beef processing company, dated
as of February 29, 2008 (“MIPA”) under which the ownership interests of
National Beef would be sold and transferred to JBS, S.A. or an affiliate at the
closing of the transaction (“Closing”); and

 

            WHEREAS, National
Beef and Executive desire the Employment Agreement to continue through the
earlier of the Closing or the last day of November, 2008 under the provisions
of this Extension Agreement;

 

            THEREFORE, National
Beef and Executive agree as follows:

 

            1.        
Extension of Expiration Date.  The Expiration Date of the Employment Agreement
shall be extended under Paragraph 1, clause (a) from October 31, 2008 to “the last day of November, 2008, or the closing of the transactions under the
MIPA, whichever is earlier.”  The extension shall apply to all provisions of
the Employment Agreement, except Sections 3.b., 3.c., and 3.d. for which the language shall be construed that the Employment Agreement expires and
measuring periods end on the last day of the fiscal year ending on or about August 30, 2008.

 

            2.        
Effect. 
National Beef and Executive intend this Extension Agreement to amend the
Employment Agreement as of the date above written.

 


		
			
			NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC

			 

			 

			 

			
			By   /s/ Steven D. Hunt                                                 
			

			    Steven D. Hunt
			

			    Chair, Management Committee

				
			
			EXECUTIVE:

			
			JOHN R. MILLER

			 

			 

			
			 /s/ John R. Miller                                                 
			

			John R. Miller
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bensalem Township, John M. :

Chaykowski, Administrator :

William Cmorey, Trustee :

:

v. : No. 1053 C.D. 2021

:

Samuel Karley, :

Appellant :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, February 21, 2023, having considered Appellant’s application 

for reargument and Appellees’ answer in response thereto, the application is 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
    in thousands
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                         12,334
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  64,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,839
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               76,047
<PP&E>                                         21,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                 14,484
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22,579
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       166
<OTHER-SE>                                     73,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,086
<SALES>                                        40,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               40,230
<CGS>                                          30,623
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  38,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             22
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,977
<INCOME-TAX>                                   786
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,182
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,182
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.07
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7832
TIMOTHY LYNN ODOM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ERNEST SUTTON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-525-MU) Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Lynn Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Lynn Odom seeks to appeal the district court’s September 28, 2001, order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) for failure to pay the filing fee. We dismiss the appeal as moot because the district court re-instated the petition after Odom paid the filing fee after dismissal. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
ex4-2.htm


             Exhibit
4.2

    


    


    


    INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF

    THE STATE
OF MARYLAND

    


       NUMBER                                                                                                                 SHARES

    


    ___________                                                                                                    ___________                                 

    


    OLD LINE
BANCSHARES, INC.

    a
Maryland corporation

    


    


    THIS CERTIFIES  that
______________________ is the registered holder of _______________ shares of
Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, $0.01 par value per
share, transferable only on the  books of the Corporation by the
holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate
properly endorsed.

    


               IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed
by its duly  authorized  officers and
its  Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed this __ day of ______ A.D.
___.

    


    ______________________                                                                                                            ____________________

          Secretary                                                                         President

    


    


    


    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    


    REVERSE
SIDE

    


            The
securities represented by this stock certificate have not been registered under
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act") or applicable state securities laws (the
"State Acts") and shall not be sold, pledged, hypothecated, donated, or
otherwise transferred (whether or not for consideration) by the holder except
upon the issuance to the Issuer of a favorable opinion of its counsel and/or the
submission to the Issuer of such other evidence as may be satisfactory to
counsel for the Issuer, to the effect that any such transfer shall not be in
violation of the Act and the State Acts.

    


            For
value received,  __________  hereby sell, assign and
transfer unto ______________ Shares represented by the within
Certificate,  and  do  hereby irrevocably
constitute and  appoint _______________ Attorney to transfer the said
Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises.

    


    


    Dated
_______________________

    


    In the
presence of

    


    


    


    


    NOTICE:
THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON
THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT  ALTERATION
OR  ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GARY SLOSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:14-cv-00954-SI

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

On August 3, 2015, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff 

was not disabled and remanded the matter back to the agency for further proceedings. Dkt. 18.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s stipulated application for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Dkt. 20. 

The EAJA authorizes the payment of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in an action 

against the United States, unless the government shows that its position in the underlying 

litigation “was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Although the EAJA creates a 

presumption that fees will be awarded to a prevailing party, Congress did not intend fee shifting 

to be mandatory. Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1995). The decision to deny EAJA 

Case 6:14-cv-00954-SI Document 24 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

attorney’s fees is within the discretion of the court. Id.; Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 

(9th Cir. 2002). A social security claimant is the “prevailing party” following a sentence-four 

remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) either for further administrative proceedings or for the 

payment of benefits. Flores, 49 F.3d at 567-68 (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300 

(1993)). Fee awards under the EAJA are paid to the litigant, and not the litigant’s attorney, 

unless the litigant has assigned his or her rights to counsel to receive the fee award. Astrue v. 

Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596-98 (2010).

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,600. Defendant stipulates 

to this amount, which represents a compromise reached between the parties. The Court has 

reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and agrees with the parties that the EAJA petition is proper and the 

amount requested is reasonable. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees (Dkt. 20) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is 

awarded $6,600 for attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. EAJA fees are subject to any offsets 

allowed under the Treasury Offset Program, as discussed in Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 593-94. Because 

Plaintiff has filed with the court a declaration confirming that Plaintiff assigned his EAJA fees to 

counsel (Dkt. 23), if Plaintiff has no debt subject to the Treasury Offset Program, then Defendant 

shall cause the check to be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney and mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney. 

If Plaintiff owes a debt subject to the Treasury Offset Program, then the check for any remaining 

funds after offset of the debt shall be payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 6:14-cv-00954-SI Document 24 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Animal Parasitic Diseases Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Resources
                        Our ScientistsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Animal Parasitic Diseases Laboratory People & Locations







Patricia  Flowers
                        Animal Parasitic Diseases Laboratory

                        




                        
                        Secretary (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (301) 504-8300
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**





I,
      Michael Lewis, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
      eLinear, Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A (First Amendment) for the annual period ended
      December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Form 10-KSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of eLinear, Inc.


**eLinear,
                Inc.**Date: April
                6, 2006
              By:
              /s/ Michael
                LewisMichael LewisChief
                Executive Officer
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 of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
M. Sinnott, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.








Dated:  November
      6, 2008
                  /s/ ROBERT M. SINNOTTRobert
      M. SinnottChief
      Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40285 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, versus
JOSE FRANCISCO ROMERO-CALDERON, a/k/a Jose Francisco Romero, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-96-CR-286-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Francisco Romero-Calderon (“Romero”) appeals from his conviction by guilty plea of reentry following deportation. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the aggravated-felony requirement for sentencing under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) makes that subsection an offense separate from illegal entry after deportation. Romero cannot demonstrate plain error, see UnitedNo. 97-40285 -2- States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 1196 (1995); his contention is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHERYL ANN COLTER, 

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 3:14-cv-00896-SI 

v. ORDER TO PAY EAJA FEES 

COMMISSIONER 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

SIMON, Judge: 

Based on the stipulation of the parties, and pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

28 U.S.C. § 2412, $13,057.12 is awarded to Plaintiff in care of her attorney, Nancy J. 

Meserow, and the check for EAJA fees shall be made payable to Nancy J. Meserow, 

based upon Plaintiff's assignment of these amounts to Plaintiff's attorney Nancy J. 

Meserow, after the satisfaction of Plaintiffs debts, if any, under Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 

S. Ct. 2521 (2010); and in addition, Plaintiff is awarded $8.00 in postage expenses 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and $5.00 in photocopying costs pursuant to 

Order to Pay EAJA fees 1:13 CV -02306-AA Page 1 

Case 3:14-cv-00896-SI Document 27 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 2
28 U.S.C. § 1920, also payable after the satisfaction of Plaintiffs debts, if any, under 

Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010). Any check for EAJA fees and for costs and 

expenses shall be made payable to Nancy J. Meserow, and be mailed to Plaintiff's 

counsel, Nancy J. Meserow, at her office: 

Law Office of Nancy J. Meserow: 

7540 S.W. 51st Ave. 

Portland, OR 

97219 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 7th day ofJuly, 2015. 

Michael Simon 

United States District Judge 

Order to Pay EAJA fees 1:13 CV -02306-AA Page 2 

Case 3:14-cv-00896-SI Document 27 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2