alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6594

MICHAEL LOUIS JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of

South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (6:06-cv-02544-SB)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Louis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,

III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Louis Johnson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny his motions for appointment of counsel and to

compel for the production of documents and things, and we 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
#### In the Matter of Thomas S. Martin, Respondent, v Kellie Alverez et al., Respondents, and James A. Duncan, Jr., et al., Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 921]

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to invalidate petitions designating Kellie Alverez and Eugene L. Farrington as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2005, for the nomination of the Working Families Party as its candidates for the public office of Town Council Member, Town of Islip, James A. Duncan, Jr., Bertha M. Lewis, Robert E Master, and Jonathan Kest appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated August 19, 2005, as granted the petition, invalidated the designating petitions, and denied their application to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the petitioner failed to join necessary parties.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly declared the certificates of authorization invalid.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
12/20/2017 , Texas Department of CriminalJustice Offender Search

RECEIVED IN

OF CRIMINAL Al

DEC 2 0 «

Return to Search Results

Offender Information Details

SID Number: 03556685

TDCJ Number: 02144989

Name: MCCOLLUM,LEONARD MITCHELL

Race: B

Gender: M

DOB: 1954-02-28

Maximum Sentence Date: 2029-10-21

Current Facility: DOMINGUEZ

Projected Release Date: 2022-10-23

Parole Eligibility Date: 2018-04-21

Offender Visitation Eligible: YES

Information provided is updated once dailyduring weekdays and multiple times per day on visitation days.

Because this information is subject to change, family members and friends are encouraged to call the

unit prior to traveling for a visit.

Deana v./iii,&rns,:ni

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE:

Scheduled Release Date:

Offender is not scheduled for release at this time.

Scheduled Release Type:

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Scheduled Release Location:

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Parole Review Information

ifj fi \&\ O

https://offender.tdcj.texas.gov/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=03556685 ' : 1/2
12/20/2017

Offense History:

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Offender Search

Offense Date Offense Sentence Date County Case No. Sentence (YY-MM-DD)

1991-09-24 FORGERY 1991-09-30 HARRIS 610874 10-00-00

1989-05-08 THEFT CT 1 1989-08-01 HARRIS 530117 CT1 10-00-00

1988-10-14 FORGERY 1989-08-01 HARRIS 519415 10-00-00

1989-04-20 THEFT CT 2 1989-08-01 HARRIS 530117 CT 2 13-00-00

1991-08-10 THEFT 3RD OFFENDER 1991-09-30 HARRIS 606224 10-00-00

2003-05-06 FORGERY-COMMERCIAL INSTR 2003-11-11 HARRIS 964896 13-06-00

2003-03-10 THEFT-AGGREGATE>15K &<20K 2003-11-11 HARRIS 964895 13-06-00

2014-02-03 FALSE STATEMENT TO OBT CREDIT 2017-07-13 HARRIS 149258001010 13-00-00

Return to Search Results

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice updates this information regularly to ensure that it is complete and

accurate, however this information can change quickly. Therefore, the information on this site may not reflect the

true current location, status, scheduled termination date, or other information regarding an offender.

For questions and comments, you may contact the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, at (936) 295-6371 or

webadmin&.tdcj.texas.gov. This information is made available to the public and law enforcement in the interest of

public safety. Any unauthorized use of this information is forbidden and subject to criminal prosecution.

New Offender Search

Texas Department of Criminal Justice | PO Box 99 | Huntsville, Texas 77342-0099 | (936) 295-6371

https://offender.tdcj.texas.gov/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=03556685 2/2
AMENDMENT
TO

    SEPARATION
AGREEMENT

    


    This
Amendment to the Separation Agreement (the "Agreement") ") is made
effective as of the date the last of the parties executes this Agreement (the
"Effective Date") by and
among Cary J. Claiborne and New Generation Biofuels Holdings,
Inc  (the "Parties").

     

    RECITALS

     

    A. The Parties entered into a
Separation Agreement on October 9, 2010.

     

    B. The
Parties have agreed to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.

     

    AGREEMENT

     

    Section 2(b)
is  hereby amended to change the amount of the Cash Severance Payment
to a single lump sum of  $70,000.

     

    Section 2(c) (ii) is hereby amended to
change the number of shares from 232,026 to 251,715 per verification by the
Company's Controller.

    


    


    Consulting Agreement.
Effective October 10, 2010 the Company will enter into an

    agreement
with your company Prosperity
Capital Management, LLC to provide advisory and other transition services
to the Company’s new President and Chief Executive Officer as well as to the
Chief Financial Officer.  The initial term of the agreement will be
from October 10 - November 30, 2010, and may be extended by mutual written
agreement of both parties. The consulting fee associated with the agreement will
be $60,000 paid in a single lump within 5 business days of the effective date of
the consulting agreement.


     

    Except as
amended hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full
force and effect.

     

    Accepted
this 19th 
day of  October, 2010.

    


    
      
        
          	
                   
      

                
	
                  John
      E. Mack

                
	
                  Chairman
      of the Board

                


        

      

    

    


    
      
        
          	
                   
      

                
	
                  Cary
      J. Claiborne
STATE v. Charles Anthony BALL.

No. 102P13-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Charles Anthony Ball, Spruce Pine, for Ball, Charles Anthony.

Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of May 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of AVP, Inc. hereby
certifies, to such officers' knowledge, that this Amendment No 2 to the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of AVP, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31,
2005 fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in this amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AVP,
Inc.

                                         By: /s/ Leonard Armato
                                            ------------------------------------
                                             Leonard Armato
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                         By: /s/ Andrew Reif
                                            ------------------------------------
                                             Andrew Reif
                                             Chief Financial Officer

November 18, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual Report of W. R. Grace &
Co. (the "Company") on Amended Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information
contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Paul J. Norris
-------------------------------------------------
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Robert M. Tarola
-------------------------------------------------
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 9, 2004


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.
STATE of North Carolina v. James Edwin BUCK.

No. 371P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Buck.

Michael D. Youth, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th day of August 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
# C_2023063EN.01005501.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/55

---

Action brought on 15 November 2022 — Nova Ship Invest v Commission

(Case T-720/22)

(2023/C 63/72)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Nova Ship Invest, Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and P. Casillas Vázquez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550); (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550); (1)

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision and the order to recover the aid contained therein; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision and the order to recover the aid contained therein;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision and the order to recover the aid contained therein, due to the incorrect method used to determine the basis of the aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision and the order to recover the aid contained therein, due to the incorrect method used to determine the basis of the aid;

| — | order the defendant institution to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that, by interpreting the concept of ‘activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira’ and ‘job creation/maintenance in the region’ restrictively, the Commission infringed Commission Decision of 27 June 2007 in Case N421/2006 and Commission Decision of 2 July 2013 in Case SA.34160 (2011/N), as well as the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013, Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, and Articles 21, 45, 49, 54 and 56 TFEU.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU for failing to state directly that the aid scheme was compatible on the same basis.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that Article 4(1) of the contested decision is invalid, in so far as the recovery order contained therein infringes Article 16(1) of Regulation 2015/1589, in that it contravenes the general principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that Article 4(1) of the contested decision is invalid, in so far as the recovery of the incompatible aid is based on an incorrect method for determining the basis of the aid.

---

(1)  OJ L 217, 22.8.2022, p. 49.

---
STATE v. EVANS.

COA06-410.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 15, 2007.

Certification Date June 4, 2007.

Appeal from Forsyth (05CRS1456, 05CRS55800, 05CRS55801)

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tropical Sportswear Int'l
Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended September 27, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robin Cohan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, 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 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/ Robin Cohan
                                              ------------------------------
                                              Robin Cohan
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              January 12, 2004
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

AMERANTH, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2022

- 1200, 2022

- 2223

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in No. 3:12

- cv

- 00733

- DMS

WVG, Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R OBERT F. R UYAK , Larson LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by J ERROLD G ANZFRIED , Ganzfried Law , Washington, DC ; J OHN W ILLIAM O SBORNE , Osborne Law LLC, Cortlandt Ma nor, NY.

F RANK A. A NGILERI , Brooks Kushman P.C., Southfield, MI, argued for defendants

- appellees. Also represented by T HOMAS W. C UNNINGHAM

.

______________________ Case: 22-1200 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2023T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK , P ROST , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 12, 2023 Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court Case: 22-1200 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2023
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Presidential Documents 53721 

Proclamation 7923 of September 4, 2005 

Honoring the Memory of the Victims of Hurricane Katrina 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

As a mark of respect for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, I hereby order, 

by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United 

States of America, that the flag of the United States shall be flown at 

half-staff at the White House and on all public buildings and grounds, 

at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the 

Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United 

States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, Tuesday, September 

20, 2005. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the 

same period at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and 

other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels 

and stations. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day 

of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth. 

W 

[FR Doc. 05–18038 

Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P
JOHNSON v. WALKER, et al.

No. 302P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Cynthia L. Van Home, E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, Charlotte, for Edwin Walker, et al.

David C. Pishko, Winston-Salem, for Johnson.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of July 2008 by NC Assoc. of Defense Attys. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Dismissed as moot. By order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
MARVEN L. POINDEXTER, INC. v. BOARDWALK, LLC; Miller Building Corporation; Deborah C. Lee; Shannon W. Myers; John C. Czerwinski and Wife, Jeanette M. Czerwinski; Manish G. Patel; Allen H. Van Dyke and Wife, Perry G. Van Dyke; George Cornelson and Wife, Kimberlye F. Cornelson; Afshin Ghazi; and Charles H. Huntley.

No. 443PA06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Martin L. White, Greg C. Ahlum, Charlotte, for Boardwalk, LLC, et al.

C. Christopher Osborh, Charlotte, for Individual Unit Owners.

L. Holmes Eleazer, Jr., Charlotte, Fenton T. Erwin, Jr., Lex M. Erwin, for Poindexter.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 15th day of May 2008 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."
PARAMOUNT RX, INC. v. Robert E. DUGGAN and Agelity, Inc.

No. 376A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

Christopher Jones, Raleigh, for Paramount Rx, Inc.

Leslie C. Packer, Raleigh, for Duggan, Robert E., et al.

James Michael Weiss, Raleigh, for Duggan, Robert E., et al.

**Opinion***436The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of November 2015 by Plaintiff:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of November 2015."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 28th day of December 2015 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12.