alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rony Estuardo PEREZ-GUZMAN, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-302.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Standard
Management Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, I, Ronald D.
Hunter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Standard Management
Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:


                  (1)      such 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 such Report
                           fairly presents, in all material respects,
                           the financial condition and results of
                           operations of Standard Management
                           Corporation.

May 14, 2003



/s/ Ronald D. Hunter
----------------------------------------
Ronald D. Hunter
Chairman 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Arena) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Jack Lief, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Arena, and Robert E. Hoffman, as Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Arena, each hereby certifies, 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 his 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 Arena.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                      |  |  |  |                                                    
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|                                      |  | 
|/S/    JACK
LIEF Jack Lief            |  |  |  | /S/    ROBERT E.
HOFFMAN Robert E. Hoffman         
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|                                      |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2010                  |  |  |  | Date: March 16, 2010
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Craig F. Fortin, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of NB&T
Financial Group, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NB&T Financial Group,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                   |  |  |  |                    
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------
|Date: May 11, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Craig F. Fortin
|                   |  |  |  | Craig F. Fortin    



29
```
  
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE EUROPE                                  Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/22/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      481,190
COMMITMENTS
  47,098   26,814   70,411  345,288  367,947  462,797  465,172   18,393   16,018

CHANGES FROM 09/15/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -27,373)
     801     -720  -10,035  -13,957   -9,606  -23,191  -20,361   -4,182   -7,012

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     9.8      5.6     14.6     71.8     76.5     96.2     96.7      3.8      3.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      103)
      24       16       29       52       61       89       94
```

----

Updated September 25, 2009
Kilunnun Adyden CHIVOSKI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7971.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Order filed August 14, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00181-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF W.A.B., III, A CHILD

On Appeal from the 311th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-04887

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due July 19, 2018. No brief or motion for extension of 

time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before August 29, 2018, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



            PHILADELPHIA CONSOLIDATED HOLDING CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
          (Dollars and Share Data in Thousands, except Per Share Data)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         As of and For the Three
                                                               Months Ended
                                                                March 31,
                                                           2000            1999
                                                           ----            ----
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>
Weighted-Average Common Shares Outstanding                12,328          12,209

Weighted-Average Share Equivalents Outstanding             2,496           2,824
                                                        --------        --------

Weighted-Average Shares and Share
 Equivalents Outstanding                                  14,824          15,033
                                                        ========        ========

Net Income                                              $  5,665        $  4,937
                                                        ========        ========

Basic Earnings per Share                                $   0.46        $   0.40
                                                        ========        ========

Diluted Earnings per Share                              $   0.38        $   0.33
                                                        ========        ========
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 24163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08635]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than May 9, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Sebastian Astrada, 
Director, Applications) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 
94105-1579:
    1. The Vanguard Group, Inc., Malvern, Pennsylvania; on behalf of 
itself, its subsidiaries and affiliates, including investment companies 
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, other pooled 
investment vehicles, and institutional accounts that are sponsored, 
managed, or advised by Vanguard; to acquire additional voting shares of 
Banner Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of 
Banner Bank, both of Walla Walla, Washington.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Jeffrey Imgarten, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Jonathan T. Damkroger and Miranda J. Hobelman, both of Lincoln, 
Nebraska; to join the Wilber Co. Voting Trust Control Group, a group 
acting in concert, to retain voting shares of First State Holding 
Company (formerly known as Wilber Co.), and thereby indirectly retain 
voting shares of First State Bank Nebraska, both of Lincoln, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 19, 
2022.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-08635 Filed 4-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPTEMBER 1, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-16162

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00066-CV-ORL-35-DAB

ROBERT G. SWOFFORD, JR.,

an individual,

SHARON L. SWOFFORD,

an individual, his wife,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

DONALD ESLINGER,

Defendant,

WILLIAM MORRIS, JR.,

RONALD REMUS,

in their individual capacity,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(September 1, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Deputies William Morris and Ronald Remus of the Sheriff’s Office of

Seminole County, Florida, appeal the denial of qualified immunity against Robert

Swofford’s complaint of excessive force. The district court concluded that genuine

issues of material fact barred summary judgment, and we affirm.

The Swoffords filed a complaint against the deputies and Sheriff Donald

Eslinger about injuries from an encounter between Robert Swofford and the

deputies. Swofford, who encountered the deputies while armed and investigating a

possible trespass on his land, alleged that the deputies used excessive force to

disarm him. The deputies moved to dismiss the complaint based on qualified

immunity, which the district court denied.

We review de novo the denial of summary judgment based on qualified

immunity. Skop v. City of Atlanta, GA, 485 F.3d 1130, 1136 (11th Cir. 2007).

We construe all facts and make all reasonable inferences in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.

The district court did not err when it ruled that Morris and Remus were not

entitled to qualified immunity. The record reveals material issues of fact about

2
whether the deputies identified themselves to Swofford, the position of Swofford’s

gun, the need for Morris and Remus to shoot Swofford, and whether Remus should

have intervened to prevent Morris’s use of force. Morris and Remus testified that

they identified themselves and warned Swofford repeatedly, but the radio

transmission from the scene did not record the deputies speaking before they fired

their guns, and that recording is consistent with Swofford’s version of events. The

deputies also gave inconsistent statements about the position of Swofford’s gun

during the encounter. The deputies acknowledged that Swofford, a white male, did

not match the description of the Hispanic suspects for whom the deputies were

searching and that Swofford was likely the owner of the property. A reasonable

jury could find that Morris and Remus violated Swofford’s clearly established

constitutional rights.

The denial of qualified immunity is AFFIRMED.

3
Donald MacPHERSON, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 17-1615.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6838
GREGORY W. BUCKLEW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director; SHERIFF WEATHERHOLTZ, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-94-872) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory W. Bucklew, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advisedAppellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate r eview. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 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
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/07/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       62,104
COMMITMENTS
  20,923    2,457    5,364   22,656   39,448   48,943   47,269   13,161   14,836

CHANGES FROM 08/31/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,149)
   1,058      215      181     -622    1,430      617    1,826    1,532      323

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    33.7      4.0      8.6     36.5     63.5     78.8     76.1     21.2     23.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       82)
      27        9       15       30       30       62       51
```

----

Updated September 10, 2010
Eunice HUSBAND, petitioner, v. David J. EBBERT, Warden, et al.

No. 17-9224.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-11137 Summary Calendar

FORREST DESMIT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DALLAS FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:11-CV-360

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Forrest DeSmit sued his employer under various theories that generally alleged employment discrimination. In a thorou g h a n d careful memorandum U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 25 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-11137 Document: 00511835490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2012No. 11-11137

opinion, the district court dismissed all claims as lacking merit. DeSmit, pro se as in the district court, appeals but does not explain how, in his view, the district court erred. The failure to brief is fatal to any claim. “Because [the plaintiff] has failed to brief any issue, his appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.” Hawkins v. Woods , No. 11-10731, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4189, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 201 2) (per curiam). This appeal, li k e w i s e , i s f rivolous and subject to dismissal under Rule 42.2. Even if we were to consider the correctness of the judgment, we would affirm on the basis of the district court’s convincing discussion of the issues raised in that court. The appeal is DISMISSED.

2 Case: 11-11137 Document: 00511835490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4344

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

QUINTON TYRELL LESTER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:17-cr-00317-WO-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2018 Decided: December 18, 2018

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Kelley Patricia Kennedy Gates, Special Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

In accordance with a written plea agreement, Quinton Tyrell Lester pled guilty to 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and was 

sentenced to 78 months in prison. Lester appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the 

sentence is reasonable but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Lester 

was advised of his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.

The district court properly calculated Lester’s Guidelines range, considered the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors and the arguments of the parties, and 

provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the case. In 

imposing sentence, the court remarked that Lester, armed with a loaded handgun, 

returned to a business from which he had stolen the previous day. Additionally, Lester 

attempted to flee from officers who were called to the scene. Lester’s within-Guidelines 

sentence is presumptively reasonable, and Lester failed to rebut the presumption. See 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 

(4th Cir. 2009). 

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Lester’s conviction and sentence. 

This court requires that counsel inform Lester, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lester requests that a petition 

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may 

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 
3

state that a copy thereof was served on Lester. 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. 

AFFIRMED