alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*An official caption containing a complete list of parties is

on file and available for inspection in the Office of the Clerk of

the Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

_____________________________

Nos. 95-2757/2758/2760/2761EM

_____________________________

Melvin Leroy Tyler, et al., *

*

Appellants, * Appeals from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Mel Carnahan, et al., * [UNPUBLISHED] *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

Submitted: February 27, 1996

 Filed: March 6, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conditions-of-confinement action, sixteen

present and former inmates of the Farmington Correctional Center appeal the

district court's interlocutory rulings denying their motions for recusal,

appointment of counsel, injunctive relief, and consolidation with Tyler v.

Ashcroft, No. 95-1341 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 1996) (unpublished per curiam).

We affirm.

We conclude the inmates' conclusory assertions of judicial bias,

which we treat as a petition for a writ of mandamus, do not establish a

"clear and indisputable right" to recusal. See In re Larson, 43 F.3d 410,

412 (8th Cir. 1994); Liddell v. Board of Educ., 677 F.2d 626, 643 (8th

Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 877-78 (1982). We also find no abuse of

discretion in the district
-2-

court's denial, without prejudice, of the inmates' motion for appointment

of counsel. See Edgington v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777,

780 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review; factors to consider); Slaughter

v. City of Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 588-89 (8th Cir. 1984). We further

conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

injunctive relief because the inmates--who alleged they were subjected to

acts of retaliation and general difficulty in communicating with other

inmate plaintiffs through intra-prison mail--made no showing of irreparable

harm, and the allegations were not related to the claims raised in the

complaint. See Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995); Devose

v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). Assuming the inmates'

challenge to the district court's order denying their motion to consolidate

this action with Tyler v. Ashcroft is properly before us, it is meritless.

Finally, we grant the inmates' motion to expand the record and deny

their motion to appoint an administrator for a deceased appellant. We

decline appellees' request to impose sanctions.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT
32.1








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




















In
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q as of and for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Michael R. Sharp, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify that to the best of my knowledge:





(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.


























/s/Michael R.
Sharp


Michael
R. Sharp


President
and Chief Executive Officer


August
14, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of National Presto Industries, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 3,
2005 (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:   August 9, 2005 | /s/   R. F. Lieble                  
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------
|                       |                                     
|                       | R. F. Lieble,Chief Financial Officer



---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7671

CHARLES B. KEATON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-97-811-1) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles B. Keaton, 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:Charles B. Keaton filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on August 17, 1998; Keaton’s notice of appeal was filed on November 6, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. His failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves thiscourt without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Keaton’s appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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
      NO. 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 First Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q as of and for the nine months ended September 30, 2007
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”), I, Michael R. Sharp, President and Chief Executive 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.
































/s/
      Michael R. Sharp


Michael
      R. Sharp


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


November
      14, 2007
# C_2020010EN.01002801.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — France) — Crédit Logement SA v OE

(Case C-829/18) (1)

(2020/C 10/38)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Montoya BAIRES, a/k/a Nino, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6802.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 27, 2010.

Wilfredo Montoya Baires, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Patrick Friel Stokes, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wilfredo Montoya Baires seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). *812When 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. 478, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*587 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Baires has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 23.9****CONSENT OF EXPERT**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name as a Qualified Person for the NariinSukhait Technical Report under the heading “Item 3: Description of the Business – Mongolian CoalDivision – Nariin Sukhait Project” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, dated March 30, 2007, and in the 40-F.Sincerely,   */s/ Richard D. Tift III* Title: Vice President Geologic Service  Company: Norwest Corporation  Date: March 30, 2007
19
#### Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, Appellant, v Photobition New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Submitted March 8, 2010;

decided May 4, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
55 East 52nd Street

New York, NY 10055

BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

Submission No. 23-30

March 28, 2023

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: Delisting of Certain Financial Gas Option on Futures - Submission Pursuant to Section 

5c(c)(1) of the Act and Regulation 40.6(a) 

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)1 of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (the “Act”) and 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) Regulation 40.6(a), ICE Futures U.S., Inc. 

(“Exchange”) submits notice to the Commission that, effective as of the close of business today, March 28, 

2023, the Exchange will delist all contract months of the following option on futures: 

• Option on EP Permian Fixed Price Future (“FQP”)

• Option on Waha Fixed Price Future (“FQW”)

The products above currently have no open interest.

The Exchange certifies that, concurrent with this filing, a copy of this submission was posted on 

the Exchange’s website and may be accessed at (https://www.theice.com/futures-us/regulation). 

If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 312-836-6745 or at 

patrick.swartzer@theice.com.

Sincerely,

Patrick Swartzer

Director

Market Regulation
Enc.

cc: Division of Market Oversight

New York Regional Office
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FLORENCIA SALDANA
, Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 32

[ November 24, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Howard K. Coates, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502018CA008691XXXXMB

.

W. Aaron Daniel, Elliot B. Kula, and William D. Mueller of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, and Joseph J. Rinaldi, Jr., David W. Brill, and Zackary D. Slankard of Brill & Rinaldi, The Law Firm, Weston, for appellant.

Diane H. Tutt of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, K LINGENSMITH

, and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2446 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that bonds used 

to finance professional stadiums are not treated as tax-exempt bonds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. MEADOWS, and Mr. BEYER) 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 ensure 

that bonds used to finance professional stadiums are 

not treated as tax-exempt bonds. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Tax Subsidies for 

5 Stadiums Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NO TAX-EXEMPT BONDS FOR PROFESSIONAL STA7 DIUMS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 103(b) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

10 the following new paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2446 IH

1 ‘‘(4) PROFESSIONAL STADIUM BOND.—Any pro2 fessional stadium bond.’’. 

3 (b) PROFESSIONAL STADIUM BOND DEFINED.—Sec4 tion 103(c) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(3) PROFESSIONAL STADIUM BOND.—The 

7 term ‘professional stadium bond’ means any bond 

8 issued as part of an issue any proceeds of which are 

9 used to finance or refinance capital expenditures al10 locable to a facility (or appurtenant real property) 

11 which, during at least 5 days during any calendar 

12 year, is used as a stadium or arena for professional 

13 sports exhibitions, games, or training.’’. 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to bonds issued after the date of 

16 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rockies Region 2007 Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify pursuant to § 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 Registrant.
 
 /s/ Richard W. McCullough

August 13, 2010Richard W. McCulloughChief Executive OfficerPetroleum Development CorporationManaging General Partner/s/ Gysle R. Shellum

August 13, 2010Gysle R. ShellumChief Financial OfficerPetroleum Development CorporationManaging General Partner
 
 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 required by Section 906, has been provided by the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




Q4 2010 Employee Deferred Compensation Program



Eligible Employees and Time for Election: All members of Quidel Corporation’s (the
“Company’s”) management review board may elect to participate in this deferred compensation program
(this “Program”). Elections must be made and received by the Company no later than September 24,
2010. After September 24, 2010, all employee elections become irrevocable and may not be
withdrawn.


Applicable Period: This Program covers the pay period beginning September 27, 2010 through
December 31, 2010 (the “Covered Period”).


Dollar Amount to Be Deferred: Eligible employees may elect to defer a percentage of their
base salary (up to 75% and excluding any increases occurring on or after the beginning of the
Covered Period) that relates to services performed as an employee of the Company during the Covered
Period (the “Covered Salary”).


Award of RSU and Vesting Schedule: At commencement of this Program, each participating
employee will receive a restricted stock unit award that vests on January 3, 2011 (subject to the
delayed issuance provisions in the Award Agreement); provided, however, that such participating
employee remains an employee of the Company throughout the Covered Period. If a participating
employee’s service with the Company terminates prior to the vesting date, the Company shall cancel
the restricted stock unit award granted under this Program and such participating employee shall
receive, within thirty (30) days after such employee’s final date of employment, any deferred
portion of the Covered Salary under this Program and calculated through his or her final date of
service.


Issuance of Shares of Common Stock: Upon vesting of the RSU award, participating employees
will receive shares (the largest number of whole shares) of the Company’s common stock equal to (i)
the amount of his or her Covered Salary deferred under this Program divided by the average of the
market closing prices for the Company’s common stock over the Covered Period, and (ii) then
multiplying the result of the foregoing by 1.2, as a premium.


Additional Terms and Acknowledgments: Each participating employee acknowledges and agrees
that this Program is subject to the terms and conditions in the Grant Notice, the Award Agreement
and is provided under and further governed by the Company’s 2010 Equity Incentive Plan.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Spectrum Acquisition Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry Orfanos, Chief Financial Officer of Spectrum Acquisition Corporation 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) 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/Harry OrfanosHarry Orfanos, Chief Financial Officer February 14, 2008
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Form S-8
(Nos. 333-139810, 333-149773) pertaining to the 2001 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
Affymax, Inc. and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 333-149772 of Affymax, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated
March 12, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of Affymax, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Affymax, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLPPalo Alto, California
March 12, 2009


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT
32.1.


Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I, C.
Eugene Gronning, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer, of
PMI Construction Group (the "Registrant") do hereby 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 our knowledge, based upon a review of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period June 30, 2008 of the Registrant, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"):





(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 results of operations of the
Registrant.





Dated:  August
26,
2008                                                                           By:  /s/ C. Eugene
Gronning


C. Eugene Gronning


Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Accounting


Officer





* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to PMI Construction Group and will be retained by PMI Construction
Group and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.