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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2604

LAUNEIL SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

DOROTHY LOVE VESTAL SANDERS; JANNETH SANDERS;

NATALIE CAROLINE SANDERS; AARON NEIL SANDERS,

Plaintiffs,

versus

WILLIAM CLINTON, United States President;

ORRIN HATCH, United States Senate Judiciary

Chairman; JAMES HUNT, North Carolina Governor;

DIRECTOR OF NORTH CAROLINA HUMAN SERVICES;

TIMOTHY PATTI; CATHERINE STEVENS; JAMES

CARPENTER; WILLIAM VARLEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-2184-6-20AK)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: March 19, 1996

Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Jacob Leonard Safron, Special

Deputy Attorney General, Virginia Anne Gibbons, Assistant Attorney

General, Elizabeth Lerch Oxley, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Tracy Lynn Eggleston, COZEN &

O'CONNOR, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sanders v.

Clinton, No. CA-95-2184-6-20AK (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 1995). We deny

Appellant's motion for sanctions. 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
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00159

- CR

DEMETRIUS TROYILL SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27572

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Demetrius Troyill Smith was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, and after his

punishment range was enhanced as a habitual offender, Smith was sentenced to sixty years’

imprisonment. In his sole point of error on appeal, Smith contends that the trial court erred in

including a deadly weapon finding in the judgment. Smith requests that this Court modify the trial

court’s judgment by deleting the deadly weapon finding. 1 After Smith filed his brief, the State

submitted a nunc pro tunc judgment to the trial court to co rrect the error. We have received a

supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s nunc pro tunc judgment deleting the deadly

weapon finding from the judgment.

Appellate courts may not decide moot controversies. See Ex parte Flores , 130 S.W. 3d

100, 10 4

– 0 5 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2003, pet. ref’d ). “ This prohibition is rooted in the separation

of powers doctrine in the Texas and United States Constitutions that prohibits courts from

rendering advisory opinions. ” Nat ’ l Collegiate Athletic Ass ’ n v. Jones , 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex.

1999). “ A case becomes moot on appeal when the judgment of the appellate court can no longer

have an effect on an existing controversy or cannot affect the rights of the parties. ” Jack v. State

,

149 S.W.3d 119, 123 n.10 (Tex

. Crim. App. 2004) (per curiam) (citing VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young

,

860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam)) ; State v. Garza , 774 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tex. App.

—

Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref ’ d).

1 Smith contends that

, because (1) use of a deadly weapon was not specifically plead ed in the indictment, (2) the

weapon pleaded in the indictment (hand/fist) was not a deadly weapon per se , and (3) the jury did not affirmatively

answer a special issue on deadly weapon use, a deadly weapon finding should not have been included in the judgment.3 Because the trial court has entered a nun pro tunc judgment which provides Smith with all

relief that he has requested in this appeal, any judgment of this Court can have no effect on the

rights of the parties. Smith’s sole issue on appeal is therefore moot.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

Scott E. Stevens

Justice

Date Submitted: March 13, 2019

Date Decided: March 29 , 2019

Do Not Publish
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 15, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00358

- CV

George T. CHANEY and Medina County,

Appellant s

v.

Simon CAMACHO and Felipe CAMACHO,

Appellee s

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 03

- 20524

- CV

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitti ng: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The court has considered Appellant's Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of January, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2

                              CERTIFICATION OF THE
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Tannya L Irizarry, Chief Financial Officer of GeneThera, Inc. (the
"Company"), do hereby that to the best of my knowledge and belief that:

      (1) The Company's annual report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended
December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: July 31, 2006


By: /s/ Tannya L Irizarry
    ------------------------------------
    Tannya L Irizarry
    Chief Financial Officer (Interim)
#### SANDIFORD, Respondent, v. FROST, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 27, 1896.)

Action by Richard Sandiford against Carman Frost.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 103.
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 Purchase Point Media Corporation (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Albert Folsom, President and Chief
      Executive 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) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and
      consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Date:
      November 9,
       2005














BY: /s/ Albert
      Folsom


Albert
      Folsom,
      President and Chief


Financial
      Officer
Rapid Response Considerations

● Science plan – in development, based on TRGD

○ Study Design - Elements common to all phases

■ 1) electrofishing of well-defined 250 meters section 

■ 2) a relatively slow rate of shocking 

■ 3) sampling of adjoining river sections on both sides of the river to iteratively 

sample a larger area 

○ Hypotheses – 3

■ Hypothesis 1 – Mechanical removal via electrofishing can remove a significant portion of the young of 

year size class of smallmouth bass.

■ Hypothesis 2 – At present smallmouth bass are primarily distributed in the upper portions of the Glen 

Canyon reach consistent with limited dispersal ...

■ Hypothesis 3 – Young of year present in the system in 2022 were hatched from one or a few nests with a 

hatch data in late June.

■ Hypothesis 4 - Electrofishing will be less cost-effective for removing adult SMB than other gears.

○ Methods to evaluate effectiveness

■ Phased approach to evaluate each hypothesis in turn
Rapid Response Considerations

● Science plan – ○ Fish handling of target and non-target species

■ Minimum of processing

■ Avoid non-target fish (salmonids, adult carp)

■ Remove and preserve (ice) warm-water invasive species for additional study and 

beneficial use

○ Offramps

■ Included in study design – in development

■ Frequent meetings with partners to discuss status
Rapid Response Considerations

● Coordination 

○ Operational Lead (NPS - Detail position)

○ Volunteer Coordinator (NPS – Trammell)

○ Support (GCMRC)

○ Angler outreach (AGFD, NPS)

○ Tribal consultation (NPS)

NPS coordinating efforts for removals → Current efforts planned for Oct-Dec, 2022
Rapid Response Considerations

● Schedule 

○ AGFD week of Oct 17 – regular monitoring; will inform distribution

○ Full plan – begin Oct 24, up to 6 passes by end of Dec

WEEKS e-fishingTrip Netting

Sept 26-30 000 Fyke, and hoop nets set in hotspots

Oct 3-7 0 Fyke and hoop nets set in hotspots

Oct 10-14 TWG week

Fyke and hoop nets set in hotspots if no 

electrofishing

Oct 17-21 AGFD monitoring trip

Fyke and hoop nets set to avoid AGFD long 

term monitoring sites

Oct 24-28 pass 1 0

Oct 31-Nov 4 pass 2 0

Nov 7-11 week off 0

Nov 14-18 pass 3 Fyke, gill and hoop nets set in hotspots

Nov 21-25 week off for TG 0

Nov 28- Dec 2 pass 4 0

Dec 5-9 pass 5 Fyke, gill and hoop nets set in hotspots?

Dec 12-16 pass 6 0

Dec 20-24 week off for holiday Fyke, gill and hoop nets set in hotspots?

Dec 27-31 likely too cold, below 10 degrees Fyke, gill and hoop nets set in hotspots?
Rapid Response Considerations

● Funding – in development

○ BOR

○ NPS

○ GCMRC

○ GCC

NPS coordinating efforts for removals → Current efforts planned for Oct-Dec, 2022
Exhibit 32.3

                            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 Altair  Nanotechnologies  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended  December  31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Edward Dickinson,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my 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.


/s/ Edward Dickinson
----------------------------
Edward Dickinson
Chief Financial Officer
March 26, 2004
Exhibit 32.1



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 on Form 10-K of Capital Title Group, Inc., (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Donald R. Head, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 the operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Donald R. Head                   
|    |  | Donald R. Head                       
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | March 3, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME TAXES AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.     
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001185                        
<NAME>                        IDX SYSTEMS COPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                           <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1999         MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1                   1
<CASH>                             19,819              10,647
<SECURITIES>                       94,026             104,721 
<RECEIVABLES>                      87,136              72,376
<ALLOWANCES>                       (1,556)             (1,298)
<INVENTORY>                             0                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  213,934             200,294
<PP&E>                             73,865              57,998
<DEPRECIATION>                     38,523              28,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    270,600             242,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              45,466              46,861
<BONDS>                                 0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0                   0
<COMMON>                              267                 263  
<OTHER-SE>                        215,608             186,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      270,600             242,586
<SALES>                            60,181              72,737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   60,181              72,737
<CGS>                              39,961              37,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      32,086              27,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    1,642                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      356                  31
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (12,400)              9,342
<INCOME-TAX>                       (5,500)              4,940
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (6,900)              4,402
<DISCONTINUED>                          0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0                   0
<CHANGES>                               0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                       (6,900)              4,402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.26)               0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.26)               0.16   
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001016628
<NAME>                        HomeSide International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-11-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          35,008
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  272,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,115,581
<PP&E>                                          45,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,751,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,990,302
<BONDS>                                      1,337,783
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,262,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,751,557
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               243,012
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               170,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 72,115
<INCOME-TAX>                                    37,009
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,106
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,106
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Moriarty *v.*Moriarty.

*(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.*

June 27, 1890.)

Divorce—Alimony Pendente Lite.

Alimony *pendente lite*will not be granted in a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery where all the charges of adultery are made on information, and it does not appear that plaintiff believes the charges, and defendant positively denies them.

Appeal from special term.

*229Action for divorce by Doretta B. Moriarty against Jeremiah J. Moriarty. Defendant appeals from an order directing the payment of alimony *pendente lite*and counsel fees.

Argued before Freedman and Tritax, JJ.

*Peter Miehell,*for appellant. *George F. Martins,*for respondent.

Trttax, J.

The action is brought to obtain an absolute divorce on the ground of the adultery of the defendant. Alimony will not be granted in every action for divorce *a vinculo*brought by a wife against her husband. The plaintiff is bound, said the court of appeals in *Collins*v. *Collins,*71 N. Y. 275, to present a case to the court showing that she has a fair prospect of success in the action. In the action at bar, no such ease was presented. The moving papers do not contain a single allegation relating to the adultery of the defendant worthy a moment’s consideration by a court of justice. There are many vague statements in the moving papers to the effect that plaintiff had learned that defendant was living with a woman who claimed to be his wife; that other affiants had ascertained that defendant was keeping house with a woman who was known in the house, and who was reputed to be the wife of the defendant; that on one occasion one of the affiants was informed by this woman that she had been living with defendant for two years, and had occupied the same bed with him the night before. But we are not told from whom plaintiff obtained this information, and the statement that plaintiff had learned that defendant was keeping house with a woman is not an allegation that defendant was in fact keeping house with a woman. This court has lately held, in the case of *Martin*v. *Gross,*4 N. Y. Supp. 337, that a general assertion of a fact upon information and belief proves nothing. In the case before us, it does not even appear that plaintiff believed what she “ascertained” or was “informed” about the defendant; and the defendant and his alleged paramour deny that they are living together as husband and wife, or that they occupied a bed, as above stated. I think that the rule to be followed in a case of this kind is well stated in *Monk*v. *Monk,*7 Rob. (N. Y.) 153,—that alimony will not be granted in an action of this kind where all the charges of adultery on the part of the husband are made on information and belief, if the defendant positively denies the charges. Order appealed from reversed, and the motion for alimony denied, without costs, with leave to plaintiff to renew motion.
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. 

AMENDMENT TO 
 WARRANT TO
PURCHASE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK (this
“Amendment”) is made as of April 1, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (the “Company”) and Alan H. Auerbach (the
“Holder”). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Warrant (as defined below). 

RECITALS 
 A.    The
Company has issued to the Holder a Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock, dated October 4, 2011 (the “Warrant”), pursuant to which the Holder may purchase up to 2,116,250 shares of the Company’s common stock
with an exercise price of $16.00 per share. 
 B.    The Expiration Date of the Warrant is October 4, 2021. 

C.    The parties hereto wish to extend the term of the Warrant by five years, subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company on
or prior to October 4, 2021. 
 AMENDMENT 

The parties hereto hereby amend the Warrant as follows: 
  

	1.	 Section 1. The sixth paragraph of Section 1 of the Warrant (the definition of
“Expiration Date”) is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 


 “Expiration
Date” means October 4, 2026. 
  

	2.	 This Amendment shall be and, as of the Effective Date, is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the
Warrant; provided that the Amendment shall be subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company on or prior to October 4, 2021. 


  

	3.	 Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Warrant shall remain in full force and
effect. 


 (Signature page follows) 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date
first written above. 
  

			
	PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Maximo F. Nougues





			
	Name:	 	Maximo F. Nougues
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
	
	HOLDER
	
	 /s/ Alan H. Auerbach

	Alan H. Auerbach
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.8

                                    AMENDMENT

                                       TO

           LCC INTERNATIONAL, INC. 1996 EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN

            Effective April 16, 1998, the LCC International, Inc. 1996 Employee
Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is amended as follows:

            1.    The reference to "3,224,000" in the second sentence of Section
                  4 of the Plan is replaced by "4,725,000".

            This Amendment to the LCC International, Inc. Employee Stock Option
Plan was duly approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation on April 16,
1998 and by the shareholders of the Corporation on May 19, 1998.


                                                     /s/ PETER A. DELISO
                                                  --------------------------
                                                           Secretary