alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

****

            In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles N. Martin, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 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 Exchange Act; 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/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.                      Charles N. Martin, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4


                        ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This addendum is made as of this 16th day of May, 2000 to the Employment
Agreement between Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. (the Company) and William R.
Turner, (Turner) dated September 22nd, 1999.

The parties agree to the following changes:

         3.       COMPENSATION. Effective January 1st 2000 through the remaining
                  term of the agreement, Turner shall forego his rights to
                  receive 15,000 shares of company stock per year, in exchange
                  for the change made to paragraph 5 below.

         5.       STOCK OPTIONS. Effective January 1st 2000 through the
                  remaining term of the agreement, Turner shall forego his
                  rights to receive 100,000 options (50,000 options each year of
                  the term.)

On the date hereof, the Company grants to Turner 160,000 options exercisable for
shares of the Company's common stock. The exercise price for all options shall
be $2.50.


All other terms and conditions remain the same.


Agreed to and accepted this 16th day of May, 2000.


SUMMIT BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC.


/s/ Richard Parker                               /s/ William R. Turner
-------------------------------                  -------------------------------
Richard Parker,                                  William R. Turner
Chairman and CEO


/s/                                              /s/
-------------------------------                  -------------------------------
Witness                                          Witness
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 1 0 8 2 8 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,
P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
.
J O S E L U I S R I O J A S , J R

. ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 4 : 0 8

- C R

- 1 7 0

- 5

B e f o r e H I G G I N B O T H A M , G A R Z A , a n d E L R O D , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t J o s e L u i s R i o j a s , J r
. , h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. R i o j a s h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w

o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 15 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-10828 Document: 00511381976 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
Clear All

        19 April 2022    

#                     U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Navy Installations Command Conduct Hurricane Response Exercise                  

                The first week of HURREX/CG 22 simulates storm systems developing along the U.S. Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, which will engage fleet and shore commands to rehearse heavy weather response procedures. The storms’ notional increasing intensity will drive simulated ship sorties,            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4910



# 
G ORDON K ING , Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge; James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CR-01-89, MISC-01-155) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: June 7, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Stephen A. Hudgins, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Gary M. Parker, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION PER CURIAM: Gordon King appeals his conviction and five month sentence for driving under the influence of alcohol in a third or subsequent offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 (1994), assimilating Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266 (Michie 1998), and unlawfully refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3118 (1994). King raises two issues on appeal. First, King argues the evidencewas insufficient to sustain his convictions. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, substantial evidence exists to support a verdict. Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). The testimony of the Government’s witness, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, was sufficient to sustain King’s convictions. United States v. Beidler , 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). Second, King argues the stop of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. King has waived review of this claim by his failure to bring this challenge in district court. United States v. Ricco , 52 F.3d 58, 62 (4th Cir. 1995).Accordingly, we affirm King’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. K ING
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10203

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUCIANO MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CR-170-1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Luciano Martinez has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-10203 Document: 00511640151 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
No. 11-10203

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-10203 Document: 00511640151 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Barnes, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Silver-man, J.), rendered August 12, 1988, convicting him of assault in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the supplemental charge did not serve to prejudice the defendant. It is clear that the jury "after hearing the entire charge, would gather from its language the correct rules which should be applied for arriving at its decision” *(see, People v Hall,*82 AD2d 838, 839). The charge as a whole correctly and effectively conveyed the proper elements of the crimes charged *(see, People v Bennett,*144 AD2d 564; *People v Shakur,*144 AD2d 600).

Further, we find no merit to the defendant’s assertion that the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial. The remarks complained of constituted fair response to the statements made by the defense attorney in his summation *(see, People v Seldon,*128 AD2d 742, *lv denied*70 NY2d 656; *People v Scott,*138 AD2d 421).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The People proved that the defendant was operating an automobile, accompanied by the complainant in *566the front seat and his nephew in the rear, when his nephew threatened the complainant with a knife and then forcibly dragged her from the front seat to the rear seat. Thereafter, the defendant continued to drive his automobile at a substantial rate of speed with knowledge that the complainant—who had previously attempted to jump from the car—was being repeatedly attacked by his nephew in the back seat. In light of the foregoing, the jury could rationally conclude that the defendant bore criminal responsibility as a principal for the injuries sustained by the complainant when, in order to escape the nephew’s continuing physical assaults and prompted by the defendant’s failure to stop his car, she jumped from the moving vehicle and sustained injuries as a result. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 14, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 14, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0996. BARRI SPEELER et al. v. HILDA KIMSEY.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 25 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 25 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1995
<CASH>                                      32,581,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               52,994,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,588,000
<INVENTORY>                                 74,572,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           162,294,000
<PP&E>                                     176,382,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              30,540,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             399,815,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       48,897,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       147,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 128,754,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               399,815,000
<SALES>                                    458,868,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           458,868,000
<CGS>                                      342,348,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              342,348,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            61,926,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               435,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          18,380,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             35,779,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                13,774,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         22,005,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                22,005,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.48
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 52009PC0638 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52009PC0638

**Proposal for a Council Regulation repealing Regulation (EC) No 1859/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures in respect of Uzbekistan /* COM/2009/0638 final */ **

*

*

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 17.11.2009

COM(2009) 638 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

repealing Regulation (EC) No 1859/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures in respect of Uzbekistan

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. On 14 November 2005, Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1859/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures in respect of Uzbekistan.

2. This Regulation was adopted further to Common Position 2005/792/CFSP of the same date. The relevant restrictive measures were extended by Common Positions 2006/787/CFSP, 2007/734/CFSP and 2008/843/CFSP and are due to expire on 13 November 2009.

3. On 27 October 2009, Council concluded that the measures would not be extended further.

4. The Commission proposes therefore that Regulation (EC) No 1859/2005 be repealed with effect from 14 November 2009.

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

repealing Regulation (EC) No 1859/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures in respect of Uzbekistan

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 60(1) and 301 thereof,

Having regard to Council Common Position 2007/734/CFSP of 13 November 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Uzbekistan[1] as amended and extended by Common Position 2008/843/CFSP[2],

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1859/2005 of 14 November 2005 imposing certain restrictive measures in respect of Uzbekistan[3] prohibits the sale, supply, transfer and export to Uzbekistan of equipment which might be used for internal repression and the provision of certain financing, financial assistance and technical assistance to any natural or legal person, entity or body in, or for use in, Uzbekistan.

(2) On 27 October 2009, Council concluded that the restrictive measures against Uzbekistan as provided for in Common Position 2007/734/CFSP as amended by Common Position 2008/843/CFSP, should not be extended beyond the expiration date of 13 November 2009.

(3) It is therefore appropriate to repeal Regulation (EC) No 1859/2005 with effect from the expiry of the restrictive measures set out in Common Position 2007/734/CFSP,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1859/2005 is repealed.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union .

It shall take effect on 14 November 2009.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels [...]

For the Council

The President [...]

[1] OJ L 295, 14.11.2007, p. 34.

[2] OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 55.

[3] OJ L 299, 16.11.2005, p. 23.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc. unaudited financial statements at March 31, 1998
and for the three months then ended, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.  The earnings per share (EPS) data
shown below was prepared in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting
Standard No. 128, "Earnings Per Share," basic and diluted EPS have been 
entered in place of primary and fully-diluted, respectively.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,663
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     30,262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,080
<PP&E>                                         841,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                 732,781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,198
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   266,825
<SALES>                                         56,990
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,990
<CGS>                                           50,768
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,796
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,314
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,482
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,482
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Brooks, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deeley, J.), rendered January 27, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) from a judgment of the same court (Murray, J.), rendered March 31, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and assault in the first degree, upon a separate jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

With respect to the judgment rendered January 27, 1981, any issue of law with respect to the alleged defect in the trial court’s instructions to the jury has not been preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Giammarino,*105 AD2d 802). In any event, while the court’s statement to the jury concerning whether "your minds are wavering” or "the scales are even” within the reasonable doubt charge was technically improper *(see, People v Martinez,*118 AD2d 661), the charge as a whole correctly explained the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury and therefore did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Cadorette,*83 AD2d 908, *affd*56 NY2d 1007; *People v Townes,*104 AD2d 1057).

With respect to the judgment rendered March 31, 1981, the defendant’s contention that the trial court’s *Allen*charges coerced the jury into reaching a verdict is without merit. The *592instructions here were neutral, were directed at the jurors in general, and were not coercive *(see, People v Pagan,*45 NY2d 725; *People v Eley,*121 AD2d 462). Although two *Allen*charges were given, that was not, in and of itself, improper because the important considerations for the court in determining whether to ask a jury to continue deliberations are whether "[t]he jury has deliberated for an extensive period of time without agreeing upon a verdict with respect to any of the charges submitted and [whether] the court is satisfied that any such agreement is unlikely within a reasonable time” (CPL 310.60 [1] [a]; *see generally, Matter of Plummer v Roth-wax,*63 NY2d 243). We find that based upon the circumstances, both the court’s first and second *Allen*charges were proper.

During summation the prosecutor improperly gave his opinion as to the credibility of witnesses. However, the court’s and the prosecutor’s subsequent comments to the jury effectively cured any possible prejudice which might have resulted *(see, People v Turner,*141 AD2d 878).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05777-DC Document 5 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05777-DC Document 5 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 24, 2005

Mr. Corbet F. Bryant Jr.

Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal

200 Crescent Court, Suite 1500

Dallas, TX 75201

Mr. Greg White

Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee LLP

P.O. Box 1470

Waco, TX 76701

Mr. Dale D. Williams

Williams Squires & Wren, L.L.P.

Bridgeview Center, 2nd Floor

7901 Fish Pond Road

Waco, TX 76710

Mr. John H. McElhaney

Locke Purnell Rain & Harrell

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200

Dallas, TX 75201-6776

RE:Case Number:  03-0938

Court of Appeals Number:  10-99-00326-CV

Trial Court Number:  97-1786-3

Style:LARRY MEYER

v.

JOHN CATHEY

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 03-0938Page 1**