alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clifford Anthony JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Beverly SALMON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-7821.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 18, 2013.

Decided: April 30, 2013.

Clifford Anthony Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Anthony Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 1, 2012. It was incumbent upon Jackson to file his notice of appeal by August 31, 2012. Jackson filed a letter in this court dated September 11, 2012, which we construed as a notice of appeal.*
      *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(d) (a notice of appeal mistakenly filed in the court of appeals is considered filed in the district court on the date so noted). Jackson then filed a self-described notice of appeal on September 20, 2012, at the earliest. Because both notices of appeal were untimely filed and Jackson failed 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on this notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
EXHIBIT 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 December 20, 2005 
  
 [Optionee Name] 
 [Address] 
  

	 	Re:	Acceleration of Stock Options 

  
 Dear
                            : 
  
 This letter concerns certain stock options granted to you pursuant to the Trex Company, Inc. Amended and Restated 1999 Stock Option and
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). 
  
 As you may know, the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of Trex Company, Inc. (the “Company”) has taken action to fully accelerate the vesting of each otherwise unvested stock option held by an option holder as of December 19, 2005 granted under the Plan
with an option exercise price that is greater than $25.92 (each such option, an “Accelerated Option”). Your Accelerated Options are listed on Exhibit A to this letter. 
  
 You agree that you will not sell, transfer, pledge or otherwise dispose of any shares of Company common stock acquired upon the exercise of
your Accelerated Options (any such transaction, a “Sale”) for any reason whatsoever until the earliest of (i) the date on which the exercise would have been permitted under such Accelerated Option’s pre-acceleration vesting terms
set forth in the option agreement(s) between you and the Company relating to your Accelerated Options, (ii) the date on which the exercise would have been permitted under any provision of the Plan, including but not limited to pursuant to
Section 18.2 of the Plan (Reorganization, Sale of Assets or Sale of Stock), or (iii) your last day of employment with the Company. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing agreement will apply to any Sale of shares of Company common stock
by you to (i) cover the exercise price of such Accelerated Options in connection with a cashless exercise or (ii) satisfy withholding taxes due upon your exercise of an Accelerated Option. 
  


					
	 	  	 	  	 









 If this Agreement correctly sets forth your agreement with regard to your Accelerated Options, kindly sign and return a
copy of this Agreement to my attention. 
  
 Thank
you. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 TREX COMPANY, INC.

	
	  


	 Anthony J. Cavanna

	 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



  
 I agree with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement 
  

	
	  


	 Signature

	
	  


	 Printed Name

	
	  


	 Date


  


					
	 	  	 	  	 









 Exhibit A 
  
 Accelerated Options 
  

	


					
	 Grant Date

	 	 Exercise Price

	 	 Number of Accelerated Options
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-118857 on Form S-3and Registration Statements No. 333-69103 and 333-63913 on Form S-8 of Baylake Corp. of our reportsdated March 3, 2006 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Baylake Corp., andmanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports appear in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Baylake Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2005.CROWE CHIZEK AND COMPANY LLC
----

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

| (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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                             | ENTERCONNECT                INC.       |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                             |                                   |
|                                             |                                   |
| Date:  February                1, 2008 | By:                                    | /s/  Sam                Jankovich |
|                                             | Sam                Jankovich           |
|                                             | Chief                Executive Officer |

|                                             | ENTERCONNECT                INC.       |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                             |                                   |
|                                             |                                   |
| Date:  February                1, 2008 | By:                                    | /s/  Dean                Galland |
|                                             | Dean                Galland            |
|                                             | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 14-5282 September Term, 2014 1: 09-c v -013 64-CKK Filed O n: July 10, 2 015 Sha ron M. Ha rrison,

App ellant

v
. Of f ice of the Archite ct of

the Capito l, App ellee

BEFORE: T ate l, Brown, an d Millett, Circuit Judges

O R D E R Upon con siderat ion o f

the m otion for sum ma ry af f irman ce, t he opp osition the reto, an d th e rep ly , it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion for sum ma ry af f irman ce b e grante d. T he me rits of the pa rties' po sitions a re so clear a s to warrant sum ma ry actio n. See T axpayers W atch dog, In c. v. Stan ley, 819 F.2d 29 4, 2 97 (D.C. Cir. 1987 ) (per curiam ). As t his court recen tly

explained , see Swann v. Of f ice of the Archite ct of

the Capito l, 59 8 Fe d. App x . 13 , 14 (D.C. Cir. 201 5); Newton v. Of f ice of the Archite ct of

the Capito l, 59 8 Fe d. App x . 12 , 13 (D.C. Cir. 201 5); th e Con gression al Acco unt ability Act (“Act”) incorpo rates T itle VI I’s sub stan tiv e d iscriminatio n p rov isions b y referen ce. See 2 U.S .C. § 131 1; se e also B rady v . Of

f ice of Se rg ean t atArm s, 52 0 F.3 d 4 90 (D.C. Cir. 2008 ). T here fore, cont rary to app ellant ’s argume nt, the district co urt co rrectly ap plied T itle VI I case law in ana lyz ing her claim of

discrimina tion und er th e A ct. App ellantalso argues th at t he district cou rt sho uld n ot h ave used T itle VI I case law in a nalyz ing her reta liation claims und er th e A ct, b ut sh e h as m ade no ef fort to show how applicat ion o f a d if feren t sta nda rd would ha v e ch anged the ou tcom e. T he court the refore d eclines to a ddre ss the issue. T o th e e xten t ap pellan t argues the district cou rt com mitt ed error un der T itle VI I sta nda rds in a nalyz ing her h ostile work environme nt cla ims, she has failed to sh ow that h er em ployer’s cond uct was “suf f iciently sev ere o r pervasive” to con stitute a h ostile work environme nt. Ayissi -Etoh v . Fan nie Ma e, 7 12 F.3d 57 2, 5 77 (D.C. Cir. 2013 ) (interna l quotat ion m arks om itted ).

# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 14-5282 September Term, 2014

T he Clerk is directed to pub lish this o rder. T he Clerk is f urthe r directed to w ithho ld issua nce of

the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of

an y tim ely pet ition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P . 41 (b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Ken Mead ows Depu ty Cl erk

Pag e 2
3056877.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------X

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE

LITIGATION

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

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No.:

21 MC 102 (AKH)

MARIA DELACRUZ,

Plaintiffs,

- against -

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC., et al,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.:

07-CV-05348-AKH

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

BY DEFENDANT

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X

To the Clerk of this Court and All Parties of Record:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. (“Weston”), by

and through its attorneys, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP,

hereby appears in the above-entitled action, and that all pleadings and papers in this action be

served upon the undersigned at the office and address stated below. The undersigned certifies

that he is admitted to practice before this Court.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Weston has previously appeared and served

its notice of adoption of answer in the Master Docket 21 MC 102, and files this notice merely for

the purposes of receiving CM/ECF notifications.

Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 26 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

3056877.1

Dated: New York, New York

December 11, 2007

Yours etc.,

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

By: _/s/ Jason Harrington_____

Jason Harrington (JH7273)

Attorneys for Defendant

Weston Solutions, Inc.

150 E 42

nd

Street

New York, NY 10017

(212) 490-3000 (p)

(212) 490-3038 (f)

To: All parties via ECF

Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 26 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
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 Sunburst Acquisitions III, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending February 28, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Michael R. Quinn, Principal Financial Officer and Director 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Michael R. Quinn



Michael R. Quinn,

 Principal Financial Officer and Director

May 25, 2004
Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH Document 24-2 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-394-000]

Take notice that on May 1, 2001, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet proposed to be effective June 1, 2001:

First Revised Sheet No. 543

Texas Eastern states that the purpose of this filing is to amend its tariff, as suggested by the Commission in its April 12, 2001, Order Denying Clarification and Rehearing in Docket No. CP95-218-004, to include a generic waiver of the “shipper must have title” rule and a general statement that it will only transport for others on offsystem capacity pursuant to its existing tariff and rates.

Texas Eastern states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the                           ( print page 23909)                        instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-11787 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of REVIVE-IT  CORP. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2007,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Trina
Quan,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

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

The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Trina Quan
                                        ----------------------------------
Date: October 30, 2007                  Trina Quan
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pablo A. Laviera, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We agree with defendant’s contention that the suppression court erred in applying the doctrine of inevitable discovery to justify the warrantless search and seizure of his bags and the clothing therein. The inevitable discovery rule may not be used to save from suppression "primary” evidence, i.e., "evidence illegally obtained during or as the immediate consequence of the challenged police conduct” *(People v Stith,*69 NY2d 313, 318; *see also, People v Parris,*136 AD2d 882). Here, the defendant’s bloodstained jeans, which were found when the police searched his bags of clothing in the apartment of his girlfriend’s sister, were clearly primary evidence and the suppression court improperly used the doctrine of inevitable discovery to justify their admission into evidence *(see, People v Burr,*70 NY2d 354, 360, n 3, *cert denied*485 US 989; *People v Stith, supra).*However, admitting defendant’s bloodstained bluejeans into evidence was clearly harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Burr, supra,*at 360), which included defendant’s written confession and testimony at trial in which he admitted beating the victim to death and stuffing her body into a trash barrel. Moreover, although the bloodstained jeans tended to link defendant with the victim, who had the same bloodtype as the blood found on the pants, other articles of clothing, including the sneakers defendant was wearing at the time he was arrested, similarly linked defendant to the victim.

The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the maximum permissible sentence. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — manslaughter, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 26-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 26-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 26-2 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 3 of 3
oN

March 24, 2006

Ms. Jean A. Webb

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Center

1155 21% Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Reference File # 2657.01
Rule Certification
Dear Ms. Webb:

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT®) hereby
submits the following:

- Early listing of March 2008 Corn and mini-sized Corn futures.
These futures contracts ordinarily would be authorized for trading in July 2006. Due to customer
demand, the Exchange intends to list these contracts earlier than usual (i.e., as of March 27,
2006).
This is a one-time change, rather than a permanent revision, in the Exchange’s listing cycle.

There were no opposing views with respect to this action.

The CBOT certifies that this action complies with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules
thereunder.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Draths
Vice President and Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1804 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1804

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit qualified 
    amateur sports organizations from prohibiting or substantially 
 restricting the use of an athletes name, image, or likeness, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2019

  Mr. Walker (for himself and Mr. Richmond) 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 prohibit qualified 
    amateur sports organizations from prohibiting or substantially 
 restricting the use of an athletes name, image, or likeness, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student-Athlete Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED AMATEUR SPORTS 
              ORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 501(j)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding after the period at the end the following: 
``Such term does not include an organization that substantially 
restricts a student athlete from using, or being reasonably compensated 
for the third party use of, the name, image, or likeness of such 
student athlete.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```