alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 2315

JERRY W. MULLINS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. THE UNION MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. , Defendant

- Appellee , and
JOHNS HOPKINS HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION, (JHHS); DR. JULES ALEXANDER FELEDY, JR., MD; SUBURBAN HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC., (SHHS); BETHESDA EMERGENCY ASSOCIATES LLC; DR. MATTHEW LEONARD, MD; MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC.; DR. RIVER ELLIOTT, MD; DR. NEIL ZIMMERMAN , MD , Defendants

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paula Xinis, District Judge. ( 8:16

- cv
- 01113

- PX; 1:16

- cv
- 01114

- PX )

Submitted : April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Jerry W. Mullins, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle Renae Mitchell, WHARTON, LEVIN, EHRMANTRAUT & KLEIN, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Jerry W. Mullins appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in his civil action under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons state d by the district court.
Mullins v. The Union Mem ’l Hosp., Inc. , Nos. 8:16

- cv
- 01113

- PX, 1:16

- cv
- 01114

- PX (D. Md. Apr. 14, 2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. WINSTON R. IRONS, a/k/a Tony , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Elkins

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 2:12

- cr - 00016

- JPB

- RWT

- 1; 2:14

- cv - 00090

- JPB

- RWT )

Submitted : September 27, 2018 Decided: October 12, 2018

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

. Winston R. Irons, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Winston R. Irons seeks to appeal the distr ict court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or i ts officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the d ocket on May 2, 2017

. The district court found on limited remand that Irons filed his notice of appeal on August 8, 2017. We review this factual finding for clear error, see Ray v. Clements , 700 F.3d 993, 1012

- 13 (7th Cir. 2012), and we discern no such e rror. Because Irons failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi als before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Listen

# CSSBMB Second Quarter Business Meeting

The Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys (CSSBMB) will hold a meeting to discuss its business for the Second Quarter. This meeting is open to the public.

The meeting will take place virtually and will be live-streamed on CSSBMB’s parent agency, *U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' (USCCR)*, official YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/usccr).

This meeting will explore CSSBMB business items, operations, and next steps.

Thursday, February 22, 2024 - 11:00 AM

Press Release

Notice and Agenda

Save the Date Notice

-  Event Calendar 
-  Public Briefings 
-  Commission Business Meetings 
-  Advisory Committees Meetings 
-  Archives
Exhibit 10.23


 





Execution Copy




 


Certain information identified by [***] has
been excluded from this exhibit because it is


both not material and is the type that the registrant treats as private or confidential.


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO THE

SOFTGEL COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment Number Two
(“Amendment Number Two”) is made this of 12 day of November, 2012 (the “Effective Date”), by and
between Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, having a place of business at 14 Schoolhouse Road, Somerset,
New Jersey 08873 (“Catalent”) and Clarus Therapeutics, Inc., a corporation, having its principal place of business
at 555 Skokie Blvd., #340, Northbrook, IL 60062 (“Clarus”).


 


WHEREAS, Catalent and
Clarus previously entered into and executed a Softgel Commercial Manufacturing Agreement dated July 23, 2009 as amended by Amendment Number
One dated October 23, 2012 (“Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, Catalent and
Clarus now desire to amend the terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants contained herein and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Section 16.1, first sentence of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following: “This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of six (6) years following the Commencement
Date, unless earlier terminated under this Section or Section 16.2 (the “Initial Term”),



 


		2.	Except as provided herein, all other terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.



 


		3.	This Amendment Number Two may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Any photocopy, facsimile or electronic reproduction of the executed
Amendment Number Two shall constitute an original.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Amendment Number Two to be executed by their duly authorized corporate officers or representatives as of the Effective Date first
above written.


 


	Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC	 	Clarus Therapeutics, Inc.
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Aris Gennadios	 	By:	/s/ Steven A. Bourne
	Name: 	Aris Gennadios, Ph.D.	 	Name:  	Steve Bourne
	Title: 	VP and General Manager 	 	Title:	CFO
	 	Pharmaceutical Softgel	 	 	 
	Date:	12 NOV 2012	 	Date:	November 12, 2012
Notes:

1. Type of liner may be concrete, earth (clay), membrane or other (please specify).

2. Condition of liner should be rated as poor, satisfactory, good.

3. Disregard dispersed piped or concrete lined segments with individual lengths of less than 100 feet
[868 NE2d 186, 836 NYS2d 506]

#### Nick Pavlou et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Felix Industries, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (And Another Action.)

Decided May 3, 2007

*962APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Hancock & Estabrook,*Syracuse *(Alan J. Pierce*of counsel), for appellants.

*Quirk and Bakalor, PC.,*New York City *(Timothy J. Keane*of counsel), for respondent.

*Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP,*New York City *{John Sandercock*of counsel), for Felix Industries, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent.

*Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP,*Uniondale *{Michael P. Kandler*of counsel), for Hampton C.F. Corp., third-party defendant-respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

In this personal injury case arising from the collapse of a crane on a construction site, the jury found that the operation of the crane with an excess load, in violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-8.2 (g) (2) (iii), amounted to negligence but that this was not a proximate cause of the injury suffered by plaintiff. Experts testified at trial that the crane had a preexisting crack that made it unsafe to operate with any load. The *963jury’s finding that the collapse was caused by the defect in the crane, and not the size of the load, was therefore supported by record evidence. Based on the proof, issues of negligence and causation were not inextricably interwoven in this case and the jury verdict, which did not apportion any liability to the City of New York, was not inconsistent *(cf. Marine Midland Bank v Russo Produce Co.,*50 NY2d 31, 41 [1980]). Because the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion when it reversed Supreme Court’s order granting a new trial, further consideration of plaintiffs’ arguments is beyond our review power *(see Levo v Greenwald,*66 NY2d 962, 963 [1985]). Finally, in this procedural context, this Court may not review the December 2002 nonfinal Appellate Division order (300 AD2d 120 [2002]) on this appeal from the June 2005 order *(see Weinberg v Hertz Corp.,*69 NY2d 979, 981 [1987]; CPLR 5713, 5501 [a] [1]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
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



In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of NMT Medical, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, John E. Ahern, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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: March 19, 2003
# C_2021519EN.01000101.xml

| 22.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 519/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 519/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10549 – ARDIAN FRANCE / RG SAFETY)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 519/01)

On 15 December 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10549. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10549. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
美国民权委员会发布报告:

美国联邦政府对反亚裔种族主义的回应

华盛顿哥伦比亚特区 – 今天,美国民权委员会发布《美国联邦政府对反亚裔种族主义的回

应》。根据广泛的研究、专家和公众证词,该报告评估了 2019 年至 2021 年美国反亚裔仇恨

犯罪有上升趋势,以及联邦政府在预防和执行联邦仇恨犯罪法律方面的角色。

本报告主要探讨以下三个主要领域:1) 关于针对亚洲社区成员的仇恨事件和仇恨犯罪上升趋

势的全国趋势和数据;2) 地方和州级执法机构在预防和报告仇恨犯罪方面的做法;以及 3) 联

邦政府的努力和政策,鼓励更多人参与报告仇恨犯罪事件,以及加强起诉和执行工作以预防

仇恨犯罪。

"我们的报告强调不仅要承认这个问题的重要性,还要采取具体行动,以保护全国范围内的亚

裔美国人和太平洋岛民的权利和福祉," 民权委员会主席 Rochelle Mercedes Garza 说。

获两党多数委员一致同意,自 2019 年以来首次,该报告包含以下特定于委员会的调查结果和

建议:

调查结果

数据收集和报告:

• 了解针对亚裔族裔的仇恨犯罪的严重性和规模的一个主要障碍是缺乏全面的数据。

• 一些机构向 NIBRS 资料收集的进展缓慢:2021 年,参与 FBI 仇恨犯罪数据库的机构

数为 11,834,而 2020 年数据为 15,138,而且许多未提交 2021 年数据的机构都是最大

的辖区。

建议

培训和合作:

新闻稿 聯絡人: Angelia Rorison

2023 年 9 月 27 日 publicaffairs@usccr.gov
• 检察机关和执法机构应积极调查和起诉针对亚裔美国人的仇恨犯罪和骚扰行为。

• 为前线人员提供培训,旨在教授对仇恨犯罪在其管辖区内的明确理解。

语言服务:

• 联邦、州和地方执法机构以及受害者服务机构需要识别对需要语言协助的有限英语能

力(LEP)个人的不足之处。

作为调查的一部分,委员会于 2023 年 3 月 24 日举行了一次公开简报会,届时委员们和委

员会工作人员听取了政府官员、学者、政策专家、执法专业人员、倡导者和受影响的人士等

主题专家的意见。委员会还接受了来自公众的书面材料,以纳入最终报告的考虑之中。

###

美国民权委员会是唯一独立的、两党制的机构,负责就民权事宜向总统和国会提供建议,并每年就联邦民权执法情况提

交报告。我们的 56 个州和地区咨询委员会提供了关于州和地方层面的民权关切的广泛观点。欲了解更多有关委员会的

信息,请访问 www.usccr.gov,并在 Twitter 和 Facebook 上关注我们。
****
 **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 Emeritus Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), I, Raymond R. Brandstrom, 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 
 2.
The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
 
 
 /s/    Raymond R. Brandstrom
 Raymond R. Brandstrom
 Chief Financial Officer
 January 27, 2005
#### LAMPMAN, Respondent, v. MARVIN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by James H. Lampman against George .Marvin.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10064 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALVARO SANCHEZ-GARDEA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-59-ALL-C

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alvaro SanchezGardea raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2021149EN.01000101.xml

| 27.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/1

---

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

in pursuance of Article 4 of Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on summer-time arrangements

Schedule for the summer-time period

(2021/C 149/01)

For 2022-2026 inclusive, the summer-time periods will begin and end respectively on the following dates at 1.00 a.m. UTC – Coordinated Universal Time:

| — | in 2022: the Sundays of 27 March and 30 October, |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2022: the Sundays of 27 March and 30 October,

| — | in 2023: the Sundays of 26 March and 29 October, |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2023: the Sundays of 26 March and 29 October,

| — | in 2024: the Sundays of 31 March and 27 October, |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2024: the Sundays of 31 March and 27 October,

| — | in 2025: the Sundays of 30 March and 26 October, |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2025: the Sundays of 30 March and 26 October,

| — | in 2026: the Sundays of 29 March and 25 October. |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2026: the Sundays of 29 March and 25 October.

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11172

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-00249-WTM-GRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

ANAISSA BETH GERWALD, 

a.k.a. Anaizza Gerwald, 

a.k.a. Ann E. Meraw, 

a.k.a. Ana Isabel Marraquin, 

a.k.a. Ana Isabel Garcia, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(September 15, 2015)

Case: 15-11172 Date Filed: 09/15/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before TJOFLAT, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

George R. Asinc, appointed counsel for Anaissa Gerwald in this criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of 

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and the revocation of Gerwald’s supervised release and her 

revocation sentence are AFFIRMED. Gerwald’s motion for appointment of 

substitute counsel is DENIED.

Case: 15-11172 Date Filed: 09/15/2015 Page: 2 of 2
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to the best of my knowledge; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by
the Report and results of operations for the Company for the period covered by the
Report.
 Dated: November 9, 2005/s/ David W. Odell

David W. Odell
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         451,755
<SECURITIES>                                    60,451
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,319,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,806,903
<PP&E>                                         691,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                 112,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,997,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,479,608
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,997,959
<SALES>                                     36,805,220
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            36,805,220
<CGS>                                       35,262,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,515,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                84,668
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                258,030
<INCOME-TAX>                                   101,115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            156,915
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   156,915
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



| | (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13875) pertaining to the Non-Plan Stock Options, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock
Option Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-43992) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan,
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-58173) pertaining to the Non-Plan Stock Options, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, and 1996 Non-Employee
Directors Stock Option Plan, as amended,
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-108324) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (5) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-137203) pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated March 19, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Hot Topic, Inc., and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of Hot Topic, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 30, 2010.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP

Los Angeles, California

March 19, 2010