alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lee Edward ELLERBE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-6241.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2013.

Decided: May 24, 2013.

Lee Edward Ellerbe, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lee Edward Ellerbe seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability -will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*194We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ellerbe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and 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.*
# C_2017231EN.01004601.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/46

---

Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (4000)

(Case T-303/17)

(2017/C 231/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘4000’ — EU trade mark No 12 333 548

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 654/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.

---
Exhibit 99.1

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Dale G. Rettinger, the Chief Financial Officer of PDC 2001-A Limited Partnership, hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- 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/ Dale G. Rettinger                       

Name: Dale G. Rettinger

Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: __March 26, 2003_________
RECELy
Chree

FY bp

mee D2 BE 9, 53
August 2, 2008. OF THe gp

2

ERETARIAT
Via E-Mail

Office of the Acting Secretary
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Rule Certification. NYMEX Submission 06.91: Notification of
Amendments to NYMEX Rules 9.26, 9.27, and 9.34 for the New
Natural Gas Calendar Spread Options Contract.

Dear Ms. Eileen A. Donovan:

The New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX" or the "Exchange”) is notifying the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (‘“(CFTC” or “Commission”) of amendments to
NYMEX Rules 9.26, All Month/Any One Month Position Accountability; 9.27, Expiration and
Current Delivery Month Position Limits or Position Accountability, and 9.34, Reporting Levels.

Effective on August 3, 2006, these amendments include the addition of position limits,
accountability levels, and reporting levels for the new Natural Gas Calendar Spread Options
Contract (IE). Pursuant to Section Sc(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC
Rule 40.6, the Exchange hereby certifies that the attached rule amendments comply with the Act,
including regulations under the Act.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Anthony V.
Densieski, Senior Director, Market Surveillance, at (212) 299-2881, or Bonnie H. Yurga,
Director, Market Surveillance, at (212) 299-2879.

Very truly yours,

Thomas F. LaSala
Senior Vice President
Compliance and Risk Management
ce: Brian Regan
Nancy Minett


ContractName | Rule | Commodity | All/Any One Month | Expiration | Reporting
Chapter Code Accountability Month Level__| Aggregate | Aggregate
Level Limit Into (1) Into (2)
Rule 9.26 Rule 9.27 | Rule 9.34
USA
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Calendar Spread
Options Contract 391 IE 12,000 1,000 175 NG
Exhibit
99.2








CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Portage
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended August 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Martine
Caron, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.








Date:  October
7, 2008








MARTINE
CARON


Martine
Caron


Chief
Executive Officer,


President
and Director











-1-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6482

JERRY LEE JENKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, M.H.C.; JOSEPH

CURRAN, Attorney General of the State of

Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-2409)

Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 30, 2000

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Lawrence Gitomer, THE LAW OFFICE OF MARK GITOMER, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellant. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 Although the district relied upon Green v. French, 143 F.3d

865 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1090 (1999), in its

initial denial of Jenkins’ § 2254 petition, the denial of relief

was also correct under the standards announced in Williams v.

Taylor, U.S. , 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000).

2 Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed”

on August 5, 1999 and March 8, 2000, the district court’s records

show that they were entered on the docket sheet on August 6, 1999

and March 9, 2000, respectively. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order

was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date

of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d

1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Lee Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000), and a subsequent order denying his motion for

reconsideration construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error.1

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Jenkins v.

Corcoran, No. CA-98-2409 (D. Md. Aug. 6, 1999 & Mar. 9, 2000).2 We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
SUBMISSION COVER SHEET

Registered Entity Identifier Code (optional) Date: 10/29/2021

 IMPORTANT: CHECK BOX IF CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT IS REQUESTED. 

ORGANIZATION TeraExchange, LLC 

 FILING AS A: DCM SEF DCO SDR ECM/SPDC 

TYPE OF FILING

 Rules and Rule Amendments 

 Certification under § 40.6 (a) or § 41.24 (a) 

 “Non-Material Agricultural Rule Change” under § 40.4 (b)(5)

 Notification under § 40.6 (d) 

 Request for Approval under § 40.4 (a) or § 40.5 (a)

 Advance Notice of SIDCO Rule Change under § 40.10 (a)

 Products 

 Certification under § 39.5(b), § 40.2 (a), or § 41.23 (a) 

 Swap Class Certification under § 40.2 (d) 

 Request for Approval under § 40.3 (a) 

 Novel Derivative Product Notification under § 40.12 (a) 

RULE NUMBERS 

Rules 536 and 537 reference corrections or clarifications. 

DESCRIPTION 

Conforming or stylistic changes. 

Correcting or clarifying Rule references. 

Adding Product Terms and Conditions
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.  The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors.  Comments must be received not later than June 4, 2001.

**A.****Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia**                     (Michael E. Collins, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19105-1521:                

*1.  Martin Tuchman,*                     Princeton, New Jersey; to acquire voting shares of Yardville National Bancorp, Mercerville, New Jersey, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Yardville National Bank, Yardville, New Jersey.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 15, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01-12631 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
##### 



SECURITIES ACT
 Claimsnet.com Inc.  Unsecured Convertible Promissory Note
 $100,000.00
    
    Dallas, Texas
April 5, 2006
 Company" Holder" Dollars $" Principal"
 This Unsecured Convertible Promissory Note (this Note) is issued to the Holder in connection
with the issuance by the Company, from time to time of substantially identical Unsecured
Convertible Promissory Notes, provided that such other promissory notes may vary as to their
principal amounts and the dates of issuance thereof, which other promissory notes, in the aggregate
together with this Note, are not greater in principal amount than $300,000 (such other Unsecured
Convertible Promissory Notes, collectively with this Note, the Investor Notes, and the holders of
such Investor Notes, collectively with the Holder, the Investors). The following is a statement
of the rights of the Holder and the conditions to which this Note is subject, and to which the
Holder, by the acceptance of this Note, agrees.
 1. Certain Definitions; Certain Interpretations.
 1.1. Certain Definitions
 Business Day
 Common Stock




---



##### 



Conversion Price
 Conversion Securities
 Event of Default
 Interest
 Investors
 Investor Notes
 Issue Date
 Maturity Date
 Person
 Securities Act
 1.2. Certain Interpretations
 -2-




---



##### 



2. Repayment.
 2.1. Principal
 2.2. Interest Interest" per annum,
 2.3. Location and Extension of Time for Repayments
 3. Prepayments.
 3.1. Optional Prepayment Prepayment Notice provided pari passu
 3.2. Application of Prepayments
 pro rata
 pro rata
 -3-




---



##### 



3.4. No Premiums, Penalties or Consent
 4. Events of Default.
 Event
of Default"
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 then provided, however,
 5. Conversion.
 -4-




---



##### 



5.1. Conversion
 5.2. Adjustment of Conversion Price (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 -5-




---



##### 



5.3. Mechanics of Conversion
 5.4. Issuance of Certificates; Issuance Tax
 5.5. No Fractional Shares; Release of Obligations under Note
 6. Replacement of Note.
  7. Miscellaneous
 7.1. Survival
 -6-




---



##### 



7.2. Assignment
 7.3. Benefits of Note
 7.4. Severability
 7.5. Further Assurances
 7.6. Amendment and Waiver
 7.7. Delays or Omissions
 7.8. Notices
 -7-




---



##### 



If to the Company:
    
    Claimsnet.com Inc.14860 Montfort Drive, Suite 250Dallas, Texas 75254Attention: Chief Executive OfficerFacsimile: (214) 458-1737With a copy to:
    
    Reitler Brown & Rosenblatt LLC800 Third Avenue, 21st FloorNew York, New York 10022Attention: John F. Watkins, Esq.Facsimile: (212) 371-5500If to Holder:
    
    Elmira United Corporation53rd StreetUrbanizacion ObarrioSwiss Tower, 16th FloorPanama City, Republic of PanamaAttention: Hans Schellenberg
 or,
 7.9. Titles and Subtitles
 7.90. Governing Law
 7.11. Consent to Exclusive Jurisdiction and Service of Process
 [ Signature Page Follows ]
 -8-




---



##### 



In Witness Whereof
 Claimsnet.com Inc.By:Name:
    Don CrosbieTitle:
    CEO Signature Page 
Unsecured Convertible Promissory Note
Exhibit 32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Transport Corporation of America, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request. Date: March 3, 2005/s/ Keith R. KleinKeith R. KleinChief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer


---
# fcmdata0302
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

APPEARANCE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

-againstFNU LNU a/k/a 

ADOLPHO VASQUEZ Case Number: 07-CR-482 (DAB) 

Defendant 

To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: 

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for 

________________________________________ 

I hereby certify that: 

1) I am admitted to practice in this district, having been admitted on 9/19/95, 

2) That I am a member of the New York and SDNY bars in good standing and that I will 

provide the Court with a certificate of good standing within 30 days, 

3) That I will follow the local rules of this district. 

S. MICHAEL MUSA-OBREGON, ESQ. 

Bar Number: SMMO 1220 

MUSA-OBREGON & ASSOCIATES 

55-21 69TH STREET 

MASPETH, NY 11372 

Email address: musaobregonlaw@gmail.com 

Tel. (718) 803-1000 

Fax (718) 507-8486 

Cell number (917) 224-5497 

Case 1:07-cr-00482-RPP Document 8 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO

THE STEWART & STEVENSON SERVICES, INC.

1988 NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION PLAN


 


THIS AGREEMENT
by Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. (the “Company”),


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the
Board of Directors of the Company previously adopted the plan agreement known
as the “Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. 1988 Nonstatutory
Stock Option Plan” (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the
Board of Directors of the Company retained the right in Section 8 of the
Plan to amend the Plan from time to time; and


 


WHEREAS, the
Board of Directors of the Company adopted resolutions approving this amendment
to the Plan;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, effective December 14, 2005, the Board of
Directors of the Company agrees that Section 5 of the Plan is hereby
amended by adding thereto the following new clause (v):


 


(v)           Anything
in this Plan to the contrary notwithstanding, if an Employee’s employment with
the Company and its subsidiaries shall terminate for any reason, the Committee
may, in its sole discretion, determine (A) that all or a portion of the
outstanding options granted to such Employee shall become immediately
exercisable and (B) to extend the period during which the Employee shall
have the right to exercise any outstanding option granted under the Plan to the
extent it is exercisable as of the date of termination of such employment, but
in no event later than the earlier of (x) of the scheduled expiration date of
such option and (y) the latest date that would not cause such option to be
treated as providing for a “deferral of compensation” as described in section 409A
of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder.


 


Dated:  December 14, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2334

RAS-SELAH: 7 TAFARI: EL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GLASSER AND GLASSER PLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:10-cv-00532-MSD-FBS)

Submitted: April 29, 2011 Decided: May 17, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ras-Selah: 7 Tafari: El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ras-Selah: 7 Tafari: El appeals from the district 

court’s dismissal of his complaint. The district court 

interpreted the complaint as criminal in nature and dismissed 

it. A private person may not initiate a criminal action in the 

federal courts. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 

(1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable 

interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); 

Connecticut Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co., 457 F.2d 

81, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1972) (“It is a truism, and has been for many 

decades, that in our federal system crimes are always prosecuted 

by the Federal Government, not as has sometimes been done in 

Anglo-American jurisdictions by private complaints.”).*

To the extent that we can discern civil claims in the 

complaint, the claims fall within the realm of common law torts. 

Thus, a showing of jurisdiction premised on diversity of 

citizenship would be necessary for the district court to 

entertain the complaint. At base, diversity of citizenship 

requires parties to be citizens of different states or of a 

domestic state and a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2006). 

 * Ras-Selah: 7 Tafari: El claims that at least part of his 

authority to prosecute stems from his status as a sovereign. 

Whatever the nature and jurisdiction of his sovereignty, it does 

not entitle him to initiate criminal prosecutions in United 

States courts.
3

“The burden of proving jurisdictional facts rests upon the 

plaintiff.” Haynes v. James H. Carr, Inc., 427 F.2d 700, 704 

(4th Cir. 1970). The complaint here not only failed to plead 

such diversity, but affirmatively pleaded facts undermining the 

existence of diversity in the jurisdictional sense.

Finding no merit in the appeal, we affirm the judgment 

of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED