alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

JEREMY LYNN PHILLIPS, §

§

Movant, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-173

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

§

Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Jeremy Lynn Phillips, proceeding pro se, filed this motion to vacate, set aside or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate

Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge

has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge concerning this

motion to vacate. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the motion to vacate as barred

by the applicable statute of limitations. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the report.

The court has received the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,

along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. After careful review, the court finds

that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct

and the report of the magistrate judge (#5) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered

dismissing the motion to vacate.

Case 1:23-cv-00173-MAC-ZJH Document 6 Filed 12/07/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 27
Furthermore, the court is of the opinion movant is not entitled to a certificate of

appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying post-conviction collateral relief may not

proceed unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard

for a certificate of appealability requires the movant to make a substantial showing of the denial

of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde

v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the movant need

not establish that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are

subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different

manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability

should be resolved in favor of the movant, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in

making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir. 2000).

In this case, the movant has not shown that the issue of whether his motion to vacate is

barred by the applicable statute of limitations is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The

factual and legal questions raised by movant have been consistently resolved adversely to his

position and the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a

result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter. 

2

Case 1:23-cv-00173-MAC-ZJH Document 6 Filed 12/07/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 28
James Douglas WILLIAMS, Jr., petitioner, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 18-6823.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 15, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Joseph A. JENNINGS, III, petitioner, v. Susan W. JENNINGS.

No. 18-519.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Franklin County denied.
Walter L. WAGNER, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, et al.

No. 18M4.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly reporton Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended March 31, 2009 of LincolnBenefit Life Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of Lincoln Benefit Life Company.

 
| May 12,  2009 |
|--------------------|
|               |
|               | /s/  Frederick F. Cripe |
|               | Frederick  F. Cripe |
|               | Chairman  of the Board and |
|               | Chief  Executive Officer |
|               |
|               | /s/  John C. Pintozzi |
|               | John  C. Pintozzi |
|               | Senior  Vice President and |
|               | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

E-4

----
exh10-1_1536834.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 5


TO


SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED


CINEDIGM DIGITAL CINEMA CORP. 2000 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN







AMENDMENT NO. 5, dated as of April 20, 2012 (this “Amendment”), to the Second Amended and Restated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan (as amended, the “Plan”) of Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp. (f/k/a Access Integrated Technologies, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”).


 


WHEREAS, the Corporation maintains the Plan, effective as of June 1, 2000; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation deems it to be in the best interest of the Corporation and its stockholders to amend the Plan in order to decrease the maximum number of shares of the Corporation’s Class A Common Stock, par value $.001 per share, which may be issued and sold under the Plan from 7,000,000 shares to 6,300,000 shares.


 


WHEREAS, the NASDAQ Stock Market has indicated that it would not require shareholder approval of a reduction of the number of shares issuable under the Plan.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.           The first sentence of Section 5.2 shall be revised and amended to read as follows:


 


“The total number of shares of Stock (including Restricted Stock, if any) optioned or granted under this Plan during the term of the Plan shall not exceed 6,300,000 shares.”


 


2.           This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first set forth above.


 


3.           In all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed and remains in full force and effect.







[Signature Page Follows]






  





  











  














	  	
CINEDIGM DIGITAL CINEMA CORP.


	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	
By:

	  /s/ Adam M. Mizel
	  	  	
Adam M. Mizel


	  	  	
Chief Operating Officer
Capital Contribution Agreement



 Exhibit 10.15 
 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 
 THIS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
is made and entered into as of this 20th day of April, 2012, by and between (i) Ghostzapper Racing Corporation (“Raceco”) and (ii) Golden Pegasus Racing Incorporated (“Golden Pegasus”). 

W I T N E S S E T H: 
 1. Capital Contribution. Golden Pegasus is currently the sole shareholder of Raceco and in connection with the anticipated initial public offering (the “IPO”) of common shares of Raceco,
Golden Pegasus hereby agrees to pay any and all commissions and expense reimbursements paid to selling agents in connection with the IPO through an additional capital contribution to Raceco. No additional shares are to be issued in consideration for
any such additional capital contribution. Any such additional capital contribution will be paid no later than the closing date of the IPO. 
 2. Representations and Warranties of Golden Pegasus. Golden Pegasus represents and warrants to Raceco: 
 (a) Binding Obligation. This Capital Contribution Agreement is a valid, binding obligation of Golden Pegasus, enforceable in accordance with its terms; and 

(b) No Violation. The execution, delivery and performance of the Capital Contribution Agreement by Golden Pegasus do not violate
any laws, regulations, orders, decrees or agreements binding upon or affecting Golden Pegasus or this transaction; 
 3.
Representations and Warranties of Raceco. Raceco represents and warrants to Golden Pegasus that the execution, delivery and performance of this Capital Contribution Agreement by Raceco do not violate any laws, regulations, orders, decrees or
agreements binding upon or affecting Raceco or this transaction. 
 4. Governing Law. The Capital Contribution Agreement
was entered into and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been signed by Golden Pegasus and Raceco as of the
date first above written. 
  

			
	 GHOSTZAPPER RACING

CORPORATION

		
	By:	 	     /s/ Lyle Strachan

	Name:	 	Lyle Strachan
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
	
	 GOLDEN PEGASUS RACING
 INCORPORATED

		
	By:	 	     /s/ Michael Rogers

	Name:	 	Michael Rogers
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer



  
 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements together with the related footnotes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                            2665
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      872
<ALLOWANCES>                                       286
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6656
<PP&E>                                           25672
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   32328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5452
<BONDS>                                          31665
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (6421)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     32328
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5107
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2411)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2411)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
requesting extension:

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 13 Filed 11/15/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 162
```

```

----

Updated August 30, 2013
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1




                              RAIMONDO PETTIT GROUP
                A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We have issued our report dated August 28, 2003, accompanying the financial
statements included in the Annual Report of Hi-Shear Technology Corporation on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2003. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of
Hi-Shear Technology Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 33-868989).


/s/ Raimondo Pettit Group



Torrance, California
September 15, 2003
DANIELLE BERGER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 5271

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed June 6, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County

. James B. Fensom , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant; Danielle Berger, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Darrell J. HARPER, petitioner, v. TEXAS, et al.

No. 17-8926.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
Salah MOHAMED, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6590.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/14/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      364,829
COMMITMENTS
  75,868  138,950   53,960  201,545  146,012  331,373  338,922   33,456   25,907

CHANGES FROM 08/07/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     28,927)
  -1,303   11,694    1,918   17,113   13,276   17,728   26,888   11,199    2,039

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    20.8     38.1     14.8     55.2     40.0     90.8     92.9      9.2      7.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      149)
      44       63       61       32       35      114      126
```

----

Updated August 17, 2012
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Eastern District of Texas Headwater Research LLC 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP Headwater Research LLC 09/05/2023 /s/ Benjamin Wang Benjamin Wang CA Bar No. 228712

Russ August & Kabat 

12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 bwang@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Plaintiff

v.

AT&T Inc. et al

Case 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 09/05/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 198
PLEASE DELIVER ATTACHED COURT CORRESPONDENCE

TO ADDRESSEE AND HAVE FOLLOWING RECEIPT

EXECUTED. PLEASE RETURN EXECUTED RECEIPT TO

THE COURT. IF ADDRESSEE IS NO LONGER AT YOUR

INSTITUTION, PLEASE ADVISE US OF RELEASE DATE &

FORWARDING ADDRESS AND/OR NAME AND ADDRESS

OF PAROLE OFFICER. THANK YOU! - U.S. DISTRICT CLERK.

(Name of Institution)

less (if by mark) (Signati/re, or1 Idressee)

RECEIVED: ng E

on this 2 day of , 20 , at a.m./p.m.

at 

Witness (if by mark) MAY - 9 2023

WE CERTIFY THAT THE ADDRESSEE (REFUSED) OR (WAS

UNABLE) TO SIGN THE ABOVE RECEIPT. BUT THAT THE

COURT CORRESPONDENCE WAS DELIVERED TO THE

ADDRESSEE AT A.M./P.M. ON THIS DAY

OF , 20 , AT .

(Name of Institution)

Signature of Institution Delivering Agent

Witness

Case 4:23-cv-00078-SDJ-CAN Document 14 Filed 05/09/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 38
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas

Headwater Research LLC

Verizon Communications Inc. et al

2:23cv352-JRG-RSP

Headwater Research LLC

07/17/2024 /s/ Andrea L. Fair

Andrea L. Fair; Texas Bar No. 24078488

1507 Bill Owens Parkway

Longview, Texas 75604

andrea@wsfirm.com

(903) 757-6400

(903) 757-2323

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 71 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1353
Todd F. BRITTON-HARR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5982.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Henry C. BARNETT, petitioner, v. William SULLIVAN, Acting Warden.

No. 17-8691.

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.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-90828 and No. 333-17833) on Form S-8 of Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc. of our
report dated February 28, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and
1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report
on Form 10-K/A of Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc.

                                                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
March 14, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000911115
<NAME> ATCHISON CASTING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,890
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                       497
<INVENTORY>                                     65,543
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               188,454
<PP&E>                                         211,428
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,821
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 388,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,525
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                     148,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   388,978
<SALES>                                        350,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               350,149
<CGS>                                          308,713
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   108
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,426
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,175)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,601
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,601
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

      

       

      

      AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

       

      

      This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement dated March 20, 2019 (this “Amendment”) is entered into between Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Javan Esfandiari (“Employee”), with respect to the Employment Agreement dated as of March 5, 2016 (the “Agreement”), between the Company and Employee.

       

        

      The Company and Employee wish to amend the provisions of the Agreement with respect to the term of Employee’s employment by the
          Company, as set forth below. In consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and agreements herein contained, the Company and Employee hereby covenant, promise and agree to and with each other as follows:

       

        

      1.          Term. The first sentence of Section 4 of the Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

       

        

      “Unless terminated earlier as provided for in this Agreement, the term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall commence on the Effective Date and continue in effect through December 31, 2021.”

       

        

      2.          Miscellaneous. Except as set forth herein, the terms of the Agreement are unchanged and shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment, and its validity, interpretation and enforcement, shall be governed by the
          laws of the State of New York, excluding conflict of laws principles. The headings in this Amendment are for convenience only, form no part of this Agreement and shall not affect the interpretation of this Amendment. This Amendment shall not be
          construed against either of the parties.

          

        

      In Witness Whereof, each of the
          parties has executed, or caused to be executed, this Amendment as of the date first written above.

       

        

      	
              Javan Esfandiari

            	 	
              Chembio Diagnostics, Inc.

            
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Javan Esfandiari	 	
              By:

            	 /s/ John J. Sperzel III

            
	 	 	 	
              Chief Executive Officer and President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6725

JERRY ADAM HELMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA00-978-PJM) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 7, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Adam Helms, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court's orders are dated April 11, 2000, and May 2, 2000, the district court's records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on April 13, 2000, and May 8, 2000, respectively. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court's decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Adam Helms, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint anddenying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Helms v. Conroy , No. CA-00-878-PJM (D. Md. April 12 & May 4, 2000). * 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