alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-30254

Summary Calendar

Craig Joseph Aucoin, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Madison Correctional Center; Damon Williams, 

Medical Director Madison Correctional Center; 

Warden Madison Correctional Center; John Doe, ARP 

Administrator at Madison Correctional Center; 

Medical Company at Madison Correctional Center; 

Security Management, L.L.C.; Louisiana Department of 

Corrections; James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, Department 

of Public Safety and Corrections; John Doe, Louisiana 

Department of Corrections employee #1; John Doe, 

Louisiana Department of Corrections employee #2; 

John Doe, Louisiana Department of Corrections 

employee #3; John Doe, Louisiana Department of 

Corrections employee #4; Jane Doe, Medical Staff at 

Madison Correctional Center #1; Jane Doe, Medical 

Staff at Madison Correctional Center #2; Jane Doe, 

Medical Staff at Madison Correctional Center #3; Jane 

Doe, Medical Staff at Madison Correctional Center #4, 

Defendants—Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 31, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30254 Document: 00516696962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-30254

2

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:21-cv-03686

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own 

motion if necessary. Hill v. City of Seven Points, 230 F.3d 167, 169 (5th Cir. 

2000). In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, the district court granted a partial 

dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims without stating it was a final judgment or 

asserting a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) designation. “Federal 

appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals only from (1) a final decision 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) a decision that is deemed final due to 

jurisprudential exception or that has been properly certified as final pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); and (3) interlocutory orders that fall into specific 

classes, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), or that have been properly certified for appeal 

by the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc., 981 

F.2d 807, 809-10 (5th Cir. 1993). This partial dismissal is not a final or 

otherwise appealable order. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want 

of jurisdiction.

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 22-30254 Document: 00516696962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
EX-10.33



 Exhibit 10.33 
 ENERGY & EXPLORATION PARTNERS, INC. 
 2012 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

 FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT, dated as of November 16, 2012 (the
“Amendment”), is made by and between Energy & Exploration Partners, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Brian Nelson (the “Participant”). Capitalized
terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement (as defined below). 
 R
E C I T A L S: 
 WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Energy & Exploration Partners, Inc. 2012 Stock
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) pursuant to which awards of Restricted Stock of the Company may be granted; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Participant entered into a Restricted Stock Award Agreement on August 22, 2012 (“the Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to enter into this
Amendment with the Participant in recognition of the Participant’s services to the Company and to align the Participant’s and Company’s interests, subject to the terms set forth herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the services rendered by the Participant to the Company and the mutual covenants hereinafter
set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Vesting. The last three sentences in Section 4
shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “The Vesting Date shall be the earlier of
(i) January 1, 2014, or (ii) an IPO. On the Vesting Date, the restrictions described in Section 3 in the Agreement will lapse with respect to one hundred percent (100%) of the Restricted Shares.” 

2. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware
without regard to principles of conflicts of law thereof, or principles of conflicts of laws of any other jurisdiction that could cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of Delaware. 

3. Severability. Every provision of this Amendment is intended to be severable and any illegal or invalid term shall not
affect the validity or legality of the remaining terms. 
 4. Headings. The headings of the Sections hereof are
provided for convenience only and are not to serve as a basis for interpretation of construction, and shall not constitute a part of this Amendment. 
 5. Signature in Counterparts. This Amendment may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon
the same instrument. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day
first written above. 
  

			
	ENERGY & EXPLORATION PARTNERS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Hunt Pettit
	Name:	 	Hunt Pettit
	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer


 The undersigned hereby accepts the terms of this Amendment. 

	
	
	/s/ Brian Nelson
	Brian Nelson


 Signature Page to First Amendment to Restricted Stock Award Agreement
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3898 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3898

   To prohibit students who have been convicted of a criminal hazing 
offense under State law from receiving assistance under title IV of the 
                     Higher Education Act of 1965.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2014

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit students who have been convicted of a criminal hazing 
offense under State law from receiving assistance under title IV of the 
                     Higher Education Act of 1965.

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

SECTION 1. LOSS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR HAZING CRIME CONVICTION.

    Section 484 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(u) Loss of Eligibility for Hazing Crime Conviction.--No student 
who is convicted of a criminal hazing offense under State law shall be 
eligible to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance under this 
title.''.
                                 <all>
```
2003 OK JUD ETH 5

#### JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL

Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel.

Aug. 6, 2003.

JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2008-5

T1 QUESTION 1; May a municipal judge retain that office after the judge's spouse is elected to the city council?

T2 QUESTION 2: If, in the future, the spouse becomes Mayor with the right to appoint the municipal judge, must the judge resign?

T3 FACT SITUATION:

> 1. The judge seeking an opinion has been a municipal judge in a rural community since 1996. The term of office is two years and the appointment is made by the May- or.

> 2. The judge was last reappointed in 2002. Since that appointment, the judge's spouse has become a member of the city council.

T4 Canon 2: "A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities.

> (A) A judge should respect and comply with the law at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

15 WE ANSWER:

> Question 1: Yes

> Question 2: No, but may not be re-appointed by spouse.

DISCUSSION:

T6 The answer to these questions involve not only Canon 2 and the appearance of impropriety, but also the provision of 11 0.8. § 8-106 dealing with the subject of nepotism and Canon 2A as it requires a judge to comply with the law at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

T7 Title 11 0.8. § 8-106 provides, "No elected or appointed official or other authority of the municipal government shall appoint or elect any person related by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree to any . office or position of profit in the municipal government. The provisions of this seetion shall not prohibit an officer or employee already in the service of the municipality from continuing in such service or from promotion therein."

T8 It is not our function to construe statutes but it appears that the statute in question is so clear and unambiguous as applied to the fact situation that no interpretation is necessary and our answers comply with the provisions of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

T9 ROBERT L. BAILEY, Chairman, ROBERT D. SIMMS, Vice Chairman, MILTON C. CRAIG, Secretary.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 12, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Cree, Inc. and Nanocrystal Lighting Corporation under ATP Award No. 70NANB4H3037 (“Joint Venture”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Cree, Inc., Durham, NC; and Nanocrystal Lighting Corporation, Briarcliff Manor, NY. The general area of the Joint Venture's planned activity is to cooperate in performing research in the field of high efficiency solid state lighting. The research will be partially funded by an award from the Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-1968 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
----

(2004/C 78 E/0732)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0230/04

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Utilisation of Community appropriations in the Member States at the close of 2003

Can the Commission provide a breakdown for each Member State of the level of commitments and expenditure effected by the close of 2003 under the Community Support Frameworks?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Salim Abdu GOULD

No. 91P14-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Salim Abdu Gould, for Gould, Salim Abdu.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th of November 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of November 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of November 2017 by Defendant for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of November 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of November 2017 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of November 2017 by Defendant for Dismissal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of January 2018 by Defendant for Notice to Higher Court of Demand for Default Judgment:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of January 2018 *596by Defendant for Leave to File Writ of Mandamus:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of January 2018 by Defendant for Leave to File In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
**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 Quarterly Report of Eternal Energy Corp. on Form 10-QSB/A
      for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, Bradley M. Colby, President and Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1.
      The
      Report 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 result of operations of the Company.




August
      11, 2008





*/s/
                Bradley M. Colby*Bradley
                M. Colby,President
                and Chief Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
# Official Journal L 82/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 82 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5125 March 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 82

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5125 March 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 99
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT TO THE DIRECTORS OF DO GROUP, INC.


                  REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


Board of Directors
DO Group, Inc.
Elkhart, Indiana

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of DO Group, Inc. and
Subsidiary as of March 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of income and accumulated deficit and cash flows for the years
then ended (which do not appear herein).  Those financial statements are
the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on those financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of DO Group,
Inc. and Subsidiary as of March 31, 2000 and 1999, and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.




Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP
Elkhart, Indiana
June 23, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4




                            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 of Liberty Property Limited Partnership
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, GEORGE J. ALBURGER, JR., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Liberty Property Trust (the sole general partner of Liberty Property Limited
Partnership), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/  GEORGE J. ALBURGER, JR.
----------------------------------------------------
George J. Alburger, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32(b)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NewMarket Corporation (the
Company) for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Fiorenza, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|    |  |                             
|--- |  | ----------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ D. A. Fiorenza          
|    |  | David A. Fiorenza           
|    |  | Vice President and Treasurer
|    |  | April 29, 2009
Annah AWARTANI; Gilma Varinia Bonilla; Crystal Kim Parker, individually and for others similarly situated v. The MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION

No. 426P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Robert J. King, III, Attorney at Law, Daniel F.E. Smith, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Troutman, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Awartani, Annah, et al.

Maureen D. Murray, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for The Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Operating Corporation.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 21st of December 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary *864review Prior to a Determination by 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."