alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7697

ROMAN R. BRYANT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-930-5-3F) Submitted: May 19, 2000 Decided: June 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roman R. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Roman R. Bryant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Bryant v. North Carolina , No. CA98-930-5-3F (E.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 1999). 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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David C. Scott, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the quarterly report of 3PAR Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 3PAR Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ DAVID C. SCOTT                                                           
|                     |  |  |  | David C. Scott                                                               
|                     |  |  |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)

I, Adriel G. Lares, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the quarterly report of 3PAR Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 3PAR Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                    
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ ADRIEL G. LARES                                                                
|                     |  |  |  | Adriel G. Lares                                                                    
|                     |  |  |  | Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to 3PAR Inc.
and will be retained by 3PAR Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2454 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2454

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2020

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 123 East Sharpfish Street in Rosebud, South Dakota, as the ``Ben 
                     Reifel Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BEN REIFEL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 123 East Sharpfish Street in Rosebud, South Dakota, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Ben Reifel Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ben Reifel 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 30, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JORGE ANTONIO AGUILA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50209

D.C. No. 3:05-cr-01919-DMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 23, 2010** 

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 

Jorge Antonio Aguila appeals from the sentence imposed following

revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we vacate and remand.

Aguila contends the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him

FILED

AUG 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50209

based on an offense of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor that never

occurred. We vacate and remand for resentencing because it is not clear from the

record whether the district court considered the non-existent offense in imposing

its sentence at the revocation hearing. See, e.g., United States v. RodriguezMartinez, 25 F.3d 797, 800 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994) (remanding on another ground, but

stating that “the record is unclear as to whether the sentencing court considered a

1974 narcotics conviction to be evidence of Rodriguez’s recidivist nature”).

We do not reach Aguila’s remaining contention.

SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED.
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| 1.   | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September                30, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the period ending September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                International Mergers and Acquisitions                Corp. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

*/s/      Robert Palumbo*
#### Ceasar Augusto Avila IBANEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-60835

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 9, 2006.

Gloria Sarahi Echevarria, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

*427Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, John Clifford Cunningham, John S. Hogan, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Caryl G. Thompson, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ceasar Augusto Avila Ibanez (Avila), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopting and affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal. Avila argues that he demonstrated both past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution as a result of his activities in a defunct political party.

We conclude from a review of the record that the BIA’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal. *See Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir.2004); *Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.2002); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
#### Danielle Biton et al., Appellants, v Ameena Meer et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 7, 2011;

decided February 9, 2012

Reported below, 2010 NY Slip Op 60102(U).

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 17*NY3d 845 (2011)].
Anavex Life Sciences Corp. - Exhibit 10.3 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






SUBLEASE CONTRACT 

          This
  Sublease Agreement (“Agreement”) dated September 15, 2010, is made
  between Genesis Research LLC ("Genesis”), 50 Harrison Street, Suite 315,
  Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 and Anavex Life Sciences Corp (Anavex), 405 Trimmer
  Road Suite 100 Califon, NJ 07830. 

          WHEREFORE,
the parties to this document mutually desire to enter into an Agreement to
sublease certain property under a written contract.

          WHEREFORE
Genesis, hereinafter referred to as "Sublessor", has entered into a lease
contract with the Landlord of the premises located at:

          50
Harrison Street, Suite 315, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 

and; 

          WHEREFORE,
Anavex, hereinafter referred to as "Sublessee", desires to sublease said
premises under certain terms and conditions. 

The parties mutually agree to the following:

	Genesis shall provide Anavex with the use of the downstairs floor within
  Suite 315 (referred to as Suite 315A) for a period of one year beginning
  September 15, 2010.
  
	Anavex shall pay Genesis $2,500 per month plus the cost of separately
  metered utilities for the use of Suite 315A.
  
	Anavex will provide Genesis with a refundable three month Security Deposit
  ($7,500) for said premises
  
	Anavex corporate identity will be displayed at the street entrance to the
  premises as well as within the corridor outside Suite 315
  
	Anavex will have full use of the Conference Room within Suite 315
  
	Genesis will provide mail forwarding services to Anavex
  
	Anavex agrees to reimburse Genesis for any damages, beyond normal wear and
  tear, which occur to the premises while under the control of Anavex. 


AGREED AND ACCEPTED 

/s/ Harvey
Lalach           /s/
Cameron Durrant 
Anavex Life Sciences Corp. 
Date:
September 20, 2010 

/s/ Steve Arikian

Genesis Research LLC 
Date: September 20, 2010
##### 



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
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Companies.
 /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and
Chief Executive Officer August 28, 2007/s/ Keith A. SawottkeKeith A. SawottkeSenior Vice President, and
Chief Financial Officer August 28, 2007
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,

AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



In connection with the quarterly report of GelTech Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael Hull, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                              | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Date: February 13, 2009       | 
|                              | 
|/s/ Michael Hull              | 
|Michael Hull                  | 
|Chief Financial Officer       | 
|(Principal Financial Officer) |
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of TheraBiogen, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(1)    The quarterly report on form 10-q of the Company for the annual period ended August 31, 2010 (“the Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and





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





Dated: October 19, 2010
By:
/s/ Kelly T. HickelKelly T. Hickel

Chief Executive Officer

Principal Accounting Officer





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 Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.2
                       [LETTERHEAD OF BK ASSOCIATES, INC.]






March 25, 2002


Lease Investment Flight Trust
c/o Wilmington Trust Company
1100 North Market Street
Rodney Square North
Wilmington, Delaware 19890

Re: Lease Investment Flight Trust


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 (file no. 333-69864) of Aircraft Finance
Trust, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

We hereby consent to (i) the use of the information contained in our
appraisal(s) for the dates set forth in the Form 10-K, (ii) the references to
our firm in the Form 10-K, (iii) the filing of our appraisal as an exhibit to
the Form 10-K and (iv) the filing of this letter as an exhibit to the Form 10-K.

                                                 BK ASSOCIATES, INC.



                                                 /s/  R. L. Britton
                                                 --------------------------

                                                 R. L. Britton
                                                 Vice President
                                                 ISTAT Certified Appraiser
#### BLACKWELL v. CITY OF REIDSVILLE

No. 276P98

Case below: 129 N.C.App. 759

Petition by respondent for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 November 1998.
WebFilings | EDGAR view


 


Exhibit 10.1
 

 
 
 
September 1, 2010
 
Mr. Christopher M. Fanning
14073 NW Bronson Creek Drive
Portland, OR 97229
 
Dear Chris:
 
 The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Board of Directors of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (“Lattice” or the “Company”) has approved the payment to you of additional compensation of $17,750 per month for your service as Interim Chief Executive Officer of Lattice, subject to your agreement to the conditions hereafter set forth. This amount is payable to you during the period commencing August 6, 2010 and continuing to and until you cease serving as the Interim Chief Executive Officer by reason of the Board's appointment of a Chief Executive Officer and the date that such individual, if that individual is not currently employed by the Company, commences employment with the Company. This additional compensation will be paid to you in equal installments of $8,875 per pay period in accordance with the Company's normal payroll practices and will be subject to the usual, required withholdings. 
 
 This additional compensation is subject to the following conditions:
 
1)    
This additional compensation will discontinue immediately in the event your employment with the Company is terminated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, prior to the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer; 


2)    
This additional compensation will not be deemed to constitute an increase of your “Base Salary” as such term is defined or contemplated in that certain Employment Agreement by and between Lattice and you effective as of December 15, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”); 


3)    
This additional compensation accordingly will not increase any other benefit provided to you by the Company where the value or amount of such benefit is based on your Base Salary, including without limitation, potential compensation under any cash incentive plans and the amount of any life insurance benefits provided for your benefit by the Company; 


4)    
The appointment by the Board of Directors of any other individual to serve as Chief Executive Officer, if such appointment occurs, will not constitute a substantial reduction of your duties or responsibilities as contemplated in Section 6(h) of the Employment Agreement; and


5)    
Except as expressly provided herein, the Employment Agreement contains the entire understanding between the Company and you with respect to the subject of your employment by the Company. 


 
 
 
Please acknowledge your understanding of and agreement to these terms by your execution of a counterpart to this letter. 
 
		
	 
	Very turly yours,

	                                                                                                    
	LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORTAION

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Byron W. Milstead

	 
	Byron W. Milstead

	 
	Corp. Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary




 
 
 
Accepted and agreed this 1st day of September, 2010.
 
 
/s/ Christopher M. Fanning
Christopher M. Fanning
153 So. 281

#### SIMS v. HESTER et al.

8 Div. 526.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 1, 1934.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1934.

Wm. L. Chenault, of Russellville, for appel-' lant.

*322Travis Williams, of Russellville, for appellees.

BROWN, Justice.

The original bill was filed by appellant to cancel a mortgage executed by her husband, L. N. Sims, and herself, to appellees on January 12, 1932, on the wife’s land, to secure an indebtedness contracted in the purchase of a pair of mules, on the ground that the debt was that of the husband.

The appellees denied the allegation of the bill that the debt was that of the husband, and alleged that it was the joint debt of said L. N. Sims and the complainant. The answer was made a cross-bill and prayed for foreclosure of the mortgage.

The testimony was taken on oral examination before the register and reduced to writing, and on submission on pleadings and proof, the court entered a decree denying the relief prayed in the original bill and granting the respondents relief under their cross-bill.

The statute which declares that “the wife shall not, directly or indirectly, become the surety for the husband, * * * is founded upon public policy, which is to protect the wife’s estate as against the influence of her husband or other person, or her own inclination, in respect to subjecting it to her husband’s debts.” Section 8272, Code; Richardson v. Stephens, 122 Ala. 301, 307, 25 So. 39, 41.

“It has been liberally construed and zealously applied by the courts for the accomplishment of its obvious design,” and in dealing with transactions to which the statute is applicable, the courts look through the form to the substance of the transaction. Street v. Alexander City Bank, 203 Ala. 97, 98, 82 So. 111, 112; Horton v. Hill, Adm’r, 138 Ala. 625, 36 So. 465.

The question presented by this appeal is one of fact — whether or not the debt secured by the mortgage was that of the husband, alone, or was it the joint obligation of the husband and wife?

After full consideration of the evidence, we are clear to the conclusion that the mules, the purchase price of which was secured by a mortgage on crops to be grown by the husband, other personal property, and the wife’s lands, were purchased by the' husband, and the debt was his debt; that the wife acquired no property right in the mules, and was, within the spirit and purpose of the statute, the husband’s surety.

The decree of the law and equity court is therefore reversed, and one here rendered granting the relief prayed by appellant in her original bill, and canceling the said mortgage in so far as it affects the lands therein described, and the register of the law and equity court will enter on the margin of the record of said mortgage in the probate office of Franklin county the fact of the cancellation thereof by the decree here rendered. The cross-bill is dismissed. Let the appellees pay the costs of this appeal and the costs of the suit.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, O. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.