alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10659 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Nathan Thomas Hubbard**

**- Nguyen,** 
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:19

- CR

- 7

- 1

Before **Dennis, Costa,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hubbard

Nguyen 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). Hubbard

- Nguyen has not filed a response. We

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 5, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10659 Document: 00515849504 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2021No. 20

- 10659

2 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 appel late review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R. 42.2**

. Case: 20-10659 Document: 00515849504 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2021
Filed by Abe Filing Services Inc. (604) 357-3379 - www.abefiling.com - Axiologix: EX-10.4

 SECOND AMENDMENT
 

 This Second Amendment (“Second Amendment”), to the Investment Agreement dated May 17, 2010 (the "Investment Agreement") between Dutchess Opportunity Fund, II, LP ("Dutchess") and Axiologix Education Corporation, (the "Company"), is made this 17th day of September, 2010.
 

 WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of both parties to facilitate (the "Facilitation") the amendments in connection with the Investment Agreement.
 

 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein and in reliance upon the representations and warranties contained herein, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
 

 1.
 Amendment to the Investment Agreement.  
 

 (C)  COMPANY’S RIGHT TO SUSPEND.  On each Put Notice submitted to the Investor by the Company, the Company shall automatically withdraw the portion of the Put Amount if the Common Stock is less than six cents (6/100) per share (“Fixed Suspension Price”).  In the event the Common Stock falls below the Fixed Suspension Price, the Put shall be temporarily suspended.  The Put shall resume at such time as the Common Stock is above the Fixed Suspension Price, provided the dates for the Pricing Period for that particular Put are still valid.  In the event the Pricing Period has been completed any shares above the Fixed Suspension Price due to the Investor shall be sold to the Investor by the Company under the terms of the Agreement.  The Fixed Suspension Price may not be changed by the Company.  
 

 

 2.
 No other terms, rights or provisions of the Investment Agreement are or should be considered to have been modified by the terms of this Addendum and each party retains all other rights, obligations, privileges and duties contained in Investment Agreement. 
 

 

 Agreed and Accepted, and duly authorized to sign, on this 17th day of September, 2010 
 

 /s/ Douglas H. Leighton
 By Dutchess:  ___________________________________________________
                                  Douglas H. Leighton, Managing Director
 

 

 /s/ John Daglis
 By Company:___________________________________________________
          John Daglis, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1



Rimage Names Manuel M. Almeida Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing

To Strengthen Companys Focus on Targeted Markets and Global Distribution Channel



Minneapolis, MNAugust 24, 2007Rimage Corporation (Nasdaq: RIMG) today announced that Manuel M. Almeida, formerly chief operating officer, has been named executive vice president of sales and marketing for the Americas to strengthen Rimages focus on its targeted markets, including retail and medical imaging, and on its global distribution channel. He also will remain responsible for the growing Rimage Japan operation as well as Rimage Services, the Companys customer support group.



Almeida joined Rimage in 2003, following a 23-year career with Fuji Photo Film USA, Inc., where he had most recently served as vice president and general manager of the commercial imaging division. He was named chief operating officer in early 2006.



Almeida commented: My entire professional career has been involved with various executive positions in sales and marketing, which I consider to be my primary strength. By assuming this new position, I will be able to focus my time and energy on executing the sales and marketing strategies related to our initiatives in our traditional channel as well as retail and medical imaging.



Bernard P. (Bernie) Aldrich, Rimages president and chief executive officer, added: Manny has done a superior job as our chief operating officer, but we want to focus his unique business strengths and capabilities on our sales and marketing organization. Naming Manny to this new position represents a strategic decision to better align our resources with our long-term needs and to fully leverage the strengths of our management team. With Manny now focused on sales, marketing and Rimage Services, I will be responsible for operations, engineering, finance, human resources, information technology and Rimage Europe.



About Rimage

Rimage Corporation (www.rimage.com) is the worlds leading provider of CD and DVD publishing systems, which are used by businesses to produce discs with customized digital content on an on-demand basis. Rimages publishing systems, which span the range from high to low CD/DVD production volumes, integrate robotics, software and surface label printers into a complete publishing solution. Rimage is focusing its CD/DVD publishing solutions on a set of vertical markets with special needs for customized, on-demand digital information, including digital photography, medical imaging and financial institutions.



#      #     #



For additional information, contact:Bernard P. (Bernie) Aldrich, CEO
        Richard G. CinquinaRobert M. Wolf, CFO
        Equity Market PartnersRimage Corporation
        904/415-1415952/944-8144








---
NODAL EXCHANGE RULEBOOK

2023v4 7

not limited to: On-Peak and Off-Peak. These classes have variable lot sizes that 

are defined by each ISO and determined by the set of hours in the ISO market 

against which the Nodal Contract settles. Other Nodal Contracts, such as natural 

gas, have fixed lot sizes as specified in the Contract Specifications.

1.30 Contract Location. The location or locations against which a Nodal Contract 

settles. For example, the Contract Location for Nodal Contracts on power is the 

Contract Node against which the Nodal Contract settles.

1.31 Contract Node. For power contracts, the Node or Nodes against which the Nodal 

Contract settles.

1.32 Contract Specifications. The descriptions of the contractual items for each Nodal 

Contract as set forth in the document available in Appendix A. Items described in 

the Contract Specifications referenced in this Rulebook include “Last Trading 

Day,” “Daily Settlement Price,” and “Final Settlement Price.”

1.33 Contract Term. The length of the settling period for the Nodal Contract, including, 

but not limited to, monthly, weekly and daily Nodal Contracts.

1.34 Customer means a Person who uses an FCM Participant as an agent in connection 

with trading Nodal Contracts. 

1.35 Daily Settlement Price has the meaning set forth in Rule 4.10.1(a).

1.36 Deliverable Product or Underlying Contract, as applicable, has the meaning set 

forth in the Contract Specifications of Physically Settled Nodal Contracts.

1.37 Direct Access means a direct connection by a Clearing Member or Person to the 

System to enter Orders for Nodal Contracts for execution, which does notwithout 

the Order passing through the credit and risk control infrastructure of a Clearing 

Member. 

1.38 Director. An individual serving on the Board. 

1.39 Disciplinary Action has the meaning set forth in Rule 7.1. 

1.40 Disciplinary Panel. Either or both of a Review Panel and a Hearing Panel, as the 

context requires. 

1.41 Eligible Contract Participant or ECP has the meaning set forth in Section 1a(18) 

of the CEA and CFTC Regulation 1.3. 

1.42 EFP has the meaning set forth in Rule 4.7.1(a). 

1.43 EFRP has the meaning set forth in Rule 4.7.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the quarterly report of Premier Nursing Products
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Yuster,
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, 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 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.


October 3, 2008                       /s/ Michael Yuster
                                      ------------------
                                      Michael Yuster, President,
                                      principal executive officer,
                                      principal financial and accounting officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Report of Data Storage Consulting Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Joseph Meuse, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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







|                        |     |                        
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|Date: November 10, 2009 | By: | /s/  Joseph Meuse      
|                        |     | Joseph Meuse           
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer















1
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549-1004



---

FORM 8-K

---



CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Date of Report:

November 5, 2007



---

INSIGNIA SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its chapter)



Minnesota
        1-13471
        41-1656308(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)
        (CommissionFile Number)
        (IRS EmployerIdentification No.)




6470 Sycamore Court North, Maple Grove, Minnesota
        55369(Address of principal executive offices)
        (Zip Code)




Registrants telephone number, including area code   (763) 392-6200



(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)




---

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



o
        Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


o
        Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


o
        Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


o
        Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))








---

Item 8.01. Other Events.



On November 5, 2007, W. Robert Ramsdell, a director of the Company, adopted a trading plan pursuant to SEC Rule 10b5-1. The plan provides for the sale by Mr. Ramsdell of 50,000 shares of the Companys common stock each calendar month, subject to a minimum price of $4.00 per share and volume limits under SEC Rule 144, until a total of 250,000 shares are sold or the plan is terminated. Shares that are not sold in any month due to applicable limits will be sold in the following month. Except as set forth above, the timing and price of any sale are subject to the discretion of the brokerage firm. Mr. Ramsdell adopted the plan to raise funds for a home construction project.





SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





Insignia Systems, Inc.(Registrant)Date:   November 8, 2007
        
        By
        /s/ Scott F. DrillScott F. Drill, President and Chief Executive Officer




---
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 North Shore Acquisition Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I Barry J.
Gordon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Date:
      August 11, 2009
                /s/
      Barry J. GordonName:
                Barry
      J. GordonTitle:
                Co-Chairman
      and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
      (Principal Executive
Officer)
#### John Chambers et al., Plaintiffs, and Peter Leidel et al., Appellants, v Old Stone Hill Road Associates et al., Respondents.

Decided February 16, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution, and is not a nonfinal order which is appealable as of right within the Court of Appeal’s practice for enforcement of its remittitur.
#### STATE ex rel. UTILITIES COMM’N v. CHARLOTTE VAN & STORAGE CO.

No. 486P98

Case below: 131 N.C.App. 155

Petition by intervenors for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 30 December 1998.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7890
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ROCHELLE LUCAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-293-5) Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 22, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Rochelle Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Sue C. Beasley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Rochelle Lucas, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lucas, No. CA-05-293-5 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2005). 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
#### Cayuga Indian Nation of New York, Respondent, v David S. Gould, as Cayuga County Sheriff, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted February 16, 2010;

decided February 18, 2010

Motion by New York State Association of Counties et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### STATE v. WARD

No. 291P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 153

Petition by Attorney General for writ of supersedeas denied and temporary stay dissolved 8 October 1998. Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 October 1998.
#### HMS GEN. CONTR’RS v. SNIPES & ASSOC., INC.

No. 268P98

Case below: 129 N.C.App. 647

Petition by defendants (Snipes and Pope) for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 July 1998.
- 257 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports DICK v . KOSKI PROF. GROUP Cite as 308 Neb. 257

Robert Dick, appellee and cross-appellant, v. Koski Professional Group, P.C., third-party plaintiff,

appellant and cross-appellee, and Bland &

Associates, P.C., third-party defendant, appellee and cross-appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed January 29, 2021. No. S-19-132.

supplemental opinion Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J Russell Derr , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Robert M. Slovek and Dwyer Arce, of Kutak Rock, L.L.P., for appellant. Aaron A. Clark, Ruth A. Horvatich, and Cody E. Brookhouser-Sisney, of McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee Robert Dick. Ryan M. Kunhart and Jeffrey J. Blumel, of Dvorak Law Group, L.L.C., for appellee Bland & Associates, P.C.
Heavican , C.J., Cassel , Stacy , Funke , Papik , and Freudenberg , JJ.
Per Curiam

. This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Koski Professional Group, P.C. (KPG), Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 02/05/2021 08:11 AM CST- 258 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports DICK v . KOSKI PROF. GROUP Cite as 308 Neb. 257 concerning our opinion in Dick v. Koski Prof. Group , 307 Neb. 599, 950 N.W.2d 321 (2020). We find no substantive merit to KPG’s motion and overrule it, but modify the opinion as follows: (1) In the background section, under the subheading

“ Peremptory Challenges ,” we withdraw the last sentence of the sole paragraph and substitute the following: “Other than a marked copy of a jury roster included in a supplemental tran

script, the jury selection process is not otherwise reflected in the appellate record.” (2) In the analysis section, under the subheading “ Peremptory Challenges ( Assignment of Error No . 1),” we withdraw the seventh paragraph and substitute the following: We do not decide that question here. While KPG has offered a marked copy of a jury roster in a supplemental transcript, the markings on that roster do not match the roster’s legend sufficiently to support KPG’s claim that it exhausted all its peremptory challenges. As such, the record is insufficient to support its assignment of error even if we found merit to KPG’s legal premise. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Miller-Lerman , J., not participating.
#### Lila Nath MUDBHARI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr.,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72655.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 5, 2010.**

Filed Oct. 8, 2010.

Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alexandra R. Gelber, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON ***, District Judge.

*

 Eric H. Holder, Jr. is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)

***

 The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ****

Lila Nath Mudbhari, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review the BIA’s order because it conducted a de novo review of the record and made an independent determination about whether relief was appropriate. *See Molina-Morales v. INS,*237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir.2001). We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and may reverse only if the evidence compels such a result. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the Maoist rebels’ demands for money and threats against Mudbhari were not on account of his political opinion. *See Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1997). Accordingly, Mudbhari’s past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution claims are unpersuasive. See *id.; see also Njuguna v. Ashcroft,*374 F.3d 765, 770 (9th Cir.2004).

*250Because Mudbhari did not establish his eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Lastly, we decline to consider the BIA’s denial of Mudbhari’s CAT claim because he failed to raise any challenge to it in his opening brief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

****

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.