alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40619 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
VICTOR ANIBAL MATEO

- TAVAREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 270

- 1

Before ELROD, COSTA and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Anibal
Mateo

- Tavarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mateo

- Tavarez h a s not fi led a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 15, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40619 Document: 00515273247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2020No. 19

- 40619

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-40619 Document: 00515273247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2020
Exhibit 23.1

 

Consent of Independent Auditors 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Forms S-8 No. 033-79720, No. 033-79722, No. 033-94768, No. 333-05613 and No.333-05615) pertaining to the 1994 Director Option Plan and the 1994 Stock Option Plan of Point Therapeutics, Inc. of our report dated February 10, 2003, except for Note 14,as to which the date is March 5, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Point Therapeutics, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

April 24, 2003
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. 29334; Amendment No. 71-37]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This action corrects an error in the effective date contained in a Final Rule that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on September 1, 2005 (70 FR 52012). That Final Rule amended Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 relating to airspace designations to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FHA Order 7400.9N, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points.                    

# DATES:

These regulations are effective September 15, 2005. The incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.9N is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2005, through September 15, 2006.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tameka Bentley, telephone (202) 267-8783.  

Issued in Washington, DC on September 16, 2005.  

Michael Chase,  

Branch Manager, Air Traffic and Airman and Airport Certification Law, Regulations Division.  

[FR Doc. 05-18890 Filed 9-16-05; 3:48pm]  

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Marilyn Mackeprang, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth Dean Mackeprang, Defendant.

No. COA16-333

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.8


 


ENDORSEMENT TO 10% SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE


 


Precision Optics Corporation, Inc.

New York, New York

December 3, 2010


 


The
10% Senior Secured Convertible Note dated June 25, 2008 and amended
December 11, 2008, June 25, 2010 July 26, 2010, September 15,
2010, October 15, 2010, November 15, 2010, November 30, 2010 and
December 1, 2010 (the “Note”) of Precision Optics
Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”),
payable to the order of Special Situations Private Equity Fund, L.P. (the “Holder”)
in an aggregate principal amount of $275,000 and to which the Endorsement is
affixed is hereby amended in the following respects:


 


1.                                       The term “Stated
Maturity Date” is hereby restated to be “December 17, 2010.”


 


2.                                       Except as
expressly amended by this Endorsement, the Note remains in full force and
effect and the Company hereby reconfirms its obligations thereunder.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be duly executed,
and the Holder has caused this Endorsement to be duly accepted, by their
respective duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above
written.


 


 


	
   

  	
  PRECISION
  OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/
  Richard E. Forkey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:
  Richard E. Forkey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:
  Chief Executive Officer

  



 


	
  Accepted:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  SPECIAL
  SITUATIONS PRIVATE EQUITY FUND, L.P.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Adam Stettner

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:
  Adam Stettner

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
  General Partner
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002****(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of UAP Holding Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended November 25, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey L. Rutherford, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Date: December 21,2007

 
| By:        | **/s/ Jeffrey L. Rutherford**   |
|------------|---------------------------------|
| ** ** | **Jeffrey L. Rutherford**       |
| ** ** | **Chief Financial Officer**     |
| ** ** | **Principal Financial Officer** |

 

----
NUMBER 13-08-496-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN RE: SOPHIA M. ORTIZ

____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Motion for Emergency Temporary Relief

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On September 4, 2008, relator, Sophia M. Ortiz, filed a petition for writ of mandamus

in which she requests this Court to direct the Respondent, the Honorable Benjamin Euresti,

presiding judge of the107th District Court in Cameron County, Texas, to vacate his August

14, 2008 order setting aside his own temporary orders issued earlier in the day on August

14. Relator also filed a Motion for Emergency Relief, in which she requests this Court to

set aside the August 14, 2008 order of which she complains.

The Court, having considered the petition for writ of mandamus and documents on

file, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied.
2

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DENIED. Relator’s Motion for

Emergency Temporary Relief is also DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Justice Benavides, dissenting without separate opinion, would have requested a response

to the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX.R.APP.P. 52.8(b)(1).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 8th day of September, 2008.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, O. Joe Caldarelli, certify that:

1.                  Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CPI International, Inc.;

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

3.                  Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.                  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)                Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)               Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; and

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

5.                  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)                Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)               Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date:  May  14, 2007 | Signature: | /s/ O. Joe  Caldarelli                 |
|---------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                      |       | O. Joe Caldarelli,  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136321 & (82) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Marilyn Kelly 

Plaintiff-Appellant/ Maura D. Corrigan 

Cross-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, v SC: 136321 Justices COA: 269999 

Wayne CC: 05-003753

ANTHONY LEE BAISDEN,

Defendant-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 4, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 

part. We agree with the trial court that MCL 750.520b(1)(f)(iv) is applicable here and 

that it is common knowledge that penile penetration constitutes an unethical and 

unacceptable method of “medical treatment.” Therefore, we overrule People v 

Capriccioso, 207 Mich App 100, 105 (1994), and People v Thangavelu, 96 Mich App 

442, 450 (1980), to the extent that they state or hold that medical testimony is required in 

all prosecutions under MCL 750.520b(1)(f)(iv). We further overrule those cases to the 

extent that they limit the application of the statute to situations in which the medical 

examination or treatment is used as a pretext to secure a patient’s consent to sexual 

conduct. That limited interpretation does not comport with the plain language of the 

statute. The statute also applies to situations where nonconsensual sexual conduct is 

perpetrated during or in the context of medical treatment or examination. In a separate 

order, we are vacating the portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in People v 

Bayer, 279 Mich App 49 (2008), that states that medical testimony is required in all 

prosecutions under MCL 750.52b(1)(f)(iv). 

The application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is DENIED, because we are 

not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court. We 

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the defendant’s 

remaining issues. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

p0923 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2008 

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua WINKLER.

No. COA14-442-2.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND
AS OF MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000919602
<NAME> HELSINKI CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,326
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,516)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (164)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (164)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (164)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

September 12, 2008

Before

Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge

Kenneth F. Ripple, Circuit Judge

Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge

No. 07‐1426

CHRISTOPHER R. PAVEY,

          Plaintiff‐Appellee,

          v.

PATRICK CONLEY, ROBERT WATTS,

LAURENCE GROTT, et al.,

          Defendants‐Appellants.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Indiana, South Bend

Division.

No. 03 C 662

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Chief Judge.

O R D E R

The slip opinion in this case, issued on June 5, 2008, is hereby amended as follows:

The paragraph that begins on page 5 of the slip opinion (“The sequence to be followed...”),

and the next paragraph, which is on page 6 (“We emphasize that...”), are replaced by the

following:

The sequence to be followed in a case in which exhaustion is contested is

therefore as follows: (1) The district judge conducts a hearing on exhaustion and

permits whatever discovery relating to exhaustion he deems appropriate. (2) If the
Appeal No. 07‐1426 Page 2

judge determines that the prisoner did not exhaust his administrative remedies,

the judge will then determine whether (a) the plaintiff has failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies, and so he must go back and exhaust; (b) or, although he

has no unexhausted administrative remedies, the failure to exhaust was innocent

(as where prison officials prevent a prisoner from exhausting his remedies), and so

he must be given another chance to exhaust (provided that there exist remedies

that he will be permitted by the prison authorities to exhaust, so that he’s not just

being given a runaround); or (c) the failure to exhaust was the prisoner’s fault, in

which event the case is over. (3) If and when the judge determines that the

prisoner has properly exhausted his administrative remedies, the case will

proceed to pretrial discovery, and if necessary a trial, on the merits; and if there is

a jury trial, the jury will make all necessary findings of fact without being bound

by (or even informed of) any of the findings made by the district judge in

determining that the prisoner had exhausted his administrative remedies.

We emphasize that in the ordinary case discovery with respect to the merits

should be deferred until the issue of exhaustion is resolved. If merits discovery is

allowed to begin before that resolution, the statutory goal of sparing federal courts

the burden of prisoner litigation until and unless the prisoner has exhausted his

administrative remedies will not be achieved. But we do not want to place the

district courts of this circuit in a straitjacket. There may be exceptional cases in

which expeditious resolution of the litigation requires that some discovery be

permitted before the issue of exhaustion is resolved. The present case is one in

which the exhaustion issue and the merits issue share common facts (the facts

relating to the gravity of the injury to the plaintiff’s arm), so that discovery

targeted on exhaustion may well produce evidence or leads relating to the merits.
* Chief Judge of the Northern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40610

ARNULFO ANDRES LOPEZ

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

KENNETH MACK, Individually and in His Capacity as Chief of Police of the

Galveston Police Department; GALVESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY

OF GALVESTON; OFFICER CLAYTON POPE; OFFICER MATTHEW

WHITING; SERGEANT JOEL CALDWELL; OFFICER ARCHIE CHAPMAN;

UNKNOWN GALVESTON POLICE OFFICER, also known as Whitey

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

3:06-CV-371

Before GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and MILLS,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

Plaintiff-Appellant Arnulfo Andres Lopez (“Lopez”) appeals from a

December 13, 2006, Memorandum Opinion and Order of the District Court and

an April 11, 2007, Memorandum Opinion and Order of the District Court.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40610

2

Together, these orders granted summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees

and dismissed all of Lopez’s federal law claims and all of Lopez’s state law claims

except for one state law malicious prosecution claim, which the District Court

remanded to state court. We have reviewed the briefs, the entire record on

appeal, and the applicable law and have heard oral arguments of counsel.

Finding no error in the District Court’s disposition of the case, we AFFIRM

essentially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its written opinions.
STATE of North Carolina v. Janely Higuera CARDENAS.

No. COA15-1012.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Plain Error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,906
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     30,960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,392
<PP&E>                                          24,624
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,658
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,944
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,311
<SALES>                                        150,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               150,406
<CGS>                                          135,738
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  135,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,213)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (486)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (727)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (727)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (11)
        

</TABLE>