alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11489

CURTIS LEE SHEPPARD, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
JUDGE REED O ’ CONNOR, United States District Judge; E. SCOTT FROST, United States Magistrate Judge; MARCIA A. CRONE, United States District Judge; ZACK HAWTHORN, Magistrate Judge; MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, United States District Judge; K. NICOLE MITCHELL, Magistrate Judge , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:18

- CV

- 155

Before OWEN, WILLETT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Curtis Lee Sheppard , Jr. , Texas prisoner # 1656666, moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Because he has failed to show that he should be allowed to proc eed IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), see Banos v. O’Guin , 144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998),

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 5, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11489 Document: 00514984280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2019No. 18

- 11489

2 Sheppard’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied. His motion for the appointment of counsel is also denied. The facts surrounding the IFP decision ar e inextricably intertwined with the merits of the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is dismissed as
frivolous. 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. Case: 18-11489 Document: 00514984280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2019
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SHARON LEE a/k/a SHARON BYRD, DOC #577342, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4014 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 14, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge. Sharon Lee a/k/a Sharon Byrd, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
# C_2021006EN.01000901.xml

| 8.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9408 — Assa Abloy/Agta Record)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 6/07)

On 27 February 2020, 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English 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 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 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 32020M9408. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9408. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

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

---
#### Boris Sapkaroski, Appellant, v State of New York et al., Respondents.

(Claim No. 70248.)

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in memorandum decision at Court of Claims, Quigley, J. (Appeal from order of Court of Claims, Quigley, J. — partial summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9767]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-199-000]


Reliant Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Technical 
Conference

April 13, 2000.
    In the Commission's order issued on March 31, 2000,\1\ the 
Commission directed that a technical conference be held to address 
issues raised by the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 90 FERC para. 61,341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Tuesday, 
May 2, 2000, at 9:30 am, in a room to be designated at the offices of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9767 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Memorandum

    


    Zhisheng
Chen, shareholder of Nanhai Keda Hengsheng Aquiculture Co., Ltd. (the
“Company”), has borrowed from the Company an aggregate amount of RMB 21,900,000
as of December, 2009. Such loan has been used for Zhisheng Chen’s personal
investment in the construction of Foshan Nanhai Guanyao Processing Industrial
Park. (The total investment in the industrial park is RMB 120,000,000. It has a
total area of 108,000 square meters with the construction area of 85,000 square
meters. ) Without paying for interest on arrears, the above loan will be paid
off by deducting Zhisheng Chen’s allocation of shareholders’ dividends or any
other means. Meanwhile, the corporation has the priority right in using the
Foshan Nanhai Guanyao Processing Industrial Park after its construction has been
completed. The rent incurred from such priority use will be agreed upon by
Zhisheng Chen and the Company afterwards.

    


    
      
        	
                Shareholder:
      Zhisheng Chen

              	
                Company:

              
	 
      	
                Nanhai
      Keda Hengsheng Aquiculture Co., Ltd.

              
	
                Shareholder
      Signature:

              	 
      
	
                /s/
      Zhisheng Chen

              	
                Company’s
      Seal

              
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                Date:  December
      2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                             DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                      15,557
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               27,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            42,927
<PP&E>                                                      69,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           2,399,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,852,853
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                       102
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 546,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             2,399,364
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 0
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           4,891
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (1,918,347)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (1,918,347)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (1,918,347)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.24)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Patrick G. Blanchard, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on form 10-QSB ofGeorgia-Carolina-Bancshares, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theregistrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]
c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: May 14, 2004     /s/ Patrick G. Blanchard  Patrick G. Blanchard President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JANEEN DICKERSON,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (A SECOND CHANCE INC.),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 149 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of November, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Eric James, Petitioner, v Joseph Wasser, as Sheriff of Sullivan County, Respondent.

— Application, pursuant to CPLR 7002 (b) (2), for writ of habeas corpus denied. Main, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.
# Public Charge

#### Archived Content

The information on this page is out of date. However, some of the content may still be useful, so we have archived the page.

**Alert:** On Dec. 23, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility final rule will go into effect. This final rule, which was previously announced, provides clarity and consistency for noncitizens on how DHS will administer the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The final rule is similar to the 1999 Interim Field Guidance that was in place for two decades before the 2019 final rule, which has not been in effect since March 9, 2021.

The final rule will apply to adjustment of status applications postmarked (or electronically submitted, if applicable) on or after Dec. 23.

On Dec. 19, 2022, USCIS published a Policy Manual update (PDF, 714.16 KB) to provide guidance to USCIS officers on how to implement this regulation fairly and consistently, and to better inform the public about how the rule will be implemented. The policy guidance (PDF, 714.16 KB) will go into effect on Dec. 23, 2022, and applies prospectively to adjustment of status applications filed (or electronically submitted, if applicable) on or after that date. The policy update will supersede the public charge inadmissibility guidance found in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, and any related guidance addressing public charge inadmissibility.

To learn more about how we are applying the public charge ground of inadmissibility, visit our Public Charge Resources page.

12/19/2022

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
Goldrich Mining Company





Exhibit 10.39

Oral Agreement to Extend Independent Contactor Agreement




On February 10, 2010, Goldrich Mining Company and Richard R. Walters orally agreed to extend the Independent Contactor Agreement dated June 30, 2003, retroactively to January 1, 2010 for a period until the Company can determine its success in securing financing for its 2010 mining and exploration season.  The parties recognize that the measure to which the Company is successful in its financing will determine the mining and exploration program that the Company may or may not be able to undertake for 2010, and therefore may significantly affect the pricing and terms of a longer term contract. The renewed agreement allows Mr. Walters to defer cash payment for fees and expenses until the Company’s financial condition improves, or alternatively, receive some or all of his fees in the form of the Company’s common stock. 




The agreement was approved by resolution of the board of directors of Goldrich Mining Company dated February 10, 2010.















1
ex10_14.htm




 

Employment Agreement Addendum

 

For

 

David Harrell

 

3/18/2010

 

This addendum is to reference increase in base compensation for David Harrell as follows:

 

6-09 to current level      Compensations is $12,667 per month

 

 

 

Executed at 407 Sixth Street, Rochester, Michigan on 3/18/2010

 

 


Employer:

 

/s/ David Harrell

 

Employee:

 

/s/ David Harrell
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5956 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the additional 

standard deduction for individuals age 65 and older. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2010 

Mr. HINCHEY (for himself, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. 

KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. NORTON, 

and Ms. RICHARDSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the additional standard deduction for individuals age 65 

and older. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN ADDITIONAL STANDARD DEDUC4 TION FOR AGED. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.— 

6 (1) ADDITIONAL AMOUNT GENERALLY.—Para7 graph (1) of section 63(f) of the Internal Revenue 

8 Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘$600’’ and in9 serting ‘‘$2,200’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5956 IH

1 (2) ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR CERTAIN UN2 MARRIED INDIVIDUALS.—Paragraph (3) of section 

3 63(f) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘ ‘$750’ 

4 for ‘$600’ ’’ and inserting ‘‘ ‘$2,400’ for ‘$2,400’ ’’. 

5 (b) ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION.—Paragraph (4) of 

6 section 63(c) of such Code is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or subsection (f)’’ each place it 

8 appears, and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara10 graph (B)(i), by striking the period at the end of 

11 subparagraph (B)(ii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by 

12 adding at the end of subparagraph (B) the following 

13 new clause: 

14 ‘‘(iii) ‘calendar year 2010’ in the case 

15 of the dollar amounts contained in sub16 section (f).’’. 

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

19 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5724 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Federal 

responsibility for stormwater pollution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2010 

Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, and Ms. GIFFORDS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 

Federal responsibility for stormwater pollution. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR STORMWATER 

4 POLLUTION. 

5 Section 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

6 Act (33 U.S.C. 1323) is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘(c) FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR STORMWATER

9 POLLUTION.—Reasonable service charges described in 

10 subsection (a) include reasonable fees or assessments 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5724 IH

1 made for the purpose of stormwater management in the 

2 same manner and to the same extent as any nongovern3 mental entity. 

4 ‘‘(d) NO TREATMENT AS TAX OR LEVY.—A fee or 

5 assessment described in this section— 

6 ‘‘(1) shall not be considered to be a tax or other 

7 levy subject to an assertion of sovereign immunity; 

8 and 

9 ‘‘(2) may be paid using appropriated funds.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Theodore E. Charles, certify that this amendment to report on Form 10-Q fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and  that  information  contained  in this  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Investors Capital Holdings, Ltd.


Date: February 27, 2006

By: /s/ Theodore  E. Charles
----------------------------------------------
Theodore E. Charles, Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer and Director
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Santos Suarez, Also Known as Santo Suarez and as Domingo Suarez, Appellant.

Submitted April 13, 2007;

decided June 12, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the order of the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division order does not violate the terms of this Court’s remittitur *[see*6 NY3d 202]. Motion for assignment of counsel dismissed as academic.
**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 Quarterly Report of Scientigo, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, being, Doyal G. Bryant, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)         TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)         The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company. 
|        | Date:   July 17, 2006 | * *                | */s/* Doyal G. Bryant |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|   |                            | Doyal G. Bryant         |
|   |                            | Chief Executive 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 13, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60275 Summary Calendar

EDDIE BLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WACKENHUT; W.M. WILLIAMS, Warden; DR. VIRGINIA VITTOR; MELANIE GILLILAND, Head Nurse; GEORGE SNYDER, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:03-CV-157

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eddie Black has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following a summary judgment in favor of Dr. Virginia Vittor, which resulted in the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Black is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is notNo. 05-60275 -2- taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Black contends that Vittor changed his medication and the dosage without first advising him of the alteration. He has not established that Vittor’s actions evinced deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Johnson v. Treen , 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Black also contends that the district court erred in not ordering the defendants to answer his interrogatories. He has not established that the district court abused its discretion in denying such discovery after the magistrate judge had issued his report and recommendation.
See Moore v. Willis Indep. School Dist. , 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th Cir. 2000). Black’s appeal is thus without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith and denying Black IFP status on appeal, we deny the motion for leave to proceed IFP, and we DISMISS Black’s appeal as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.