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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2508

In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE,

Debtor,

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

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Creditor – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL DELL GRICE,

Debtor,

CLARA P. SWANSON,

Trustee.

No. 15-2512

In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE,

Debtor,

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

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II,

Creditor – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL DELL GRICE,

Debtor,
2

CLARA P. SWANSON,

Trustee.

No. 15-2537

In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE,

Debtor,

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

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II,

Creditor – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL DELL GRICE,

Debtor,

CLARA P. SWANSON,

Trustee.

No. 15-2538

In Re: MICHAEL DELL GRICE,

Debtor,

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

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II,

Creditor – Appellant,

v.
3

MICHAEL DELL GRICE,

Debtor,

CLARA P. SWANSON,

Trustee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

Chief District Judge. (4:15-cv-00059-RBS-DEM; 4:15-cv-00077-

RBS-DEM)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: July 5, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steve Clayton 

Taylor, LAW OFFICES OF STEVE C. TAYLOR, PC, Chesapeake, 

Virginia, for Debtor. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr.,

appeals the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy 

court’s orders returning several documents that Davis attempted 

to file in a closed bankruptcy matter. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. In re Grice, No. 

4:15-cv-00059-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 10 & entered Nov. 12, 

2015); In re Grice, No. 4:15-cv-00077-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed 

Nov. 10 & entered Nov. 12, 2015). We deny Davis’ motion to 

supplement and motions for appointment of counsel. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Alex Crisostomo, *Appellant,*v. Lillie Crisostomo, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed January 24, 1928.

*E. L. Bryan,*Attorney for Appellant;

*V. B. Fisher,*Attorney for Appellee.

Buford, J.

This was a suit for divorce brought by the wife against the husband. A decree *pro confesso*was en*71tered; testimony was taken before the court. Final decree was entered. From the final decree appeal was taken. We have carefully examined the bill of complaint and the transcript of the testimony.

The bill of complaint fails to allege such a state of facts as would properly constitute the basis for a final decree. The allegations of the bill attempting to charge those acts which constitute grounds of divorce are so vague, indefinite and uncertain as to entirely fail to put either the defendant or the court on notice as to what particular acts of the defendant are complained of as constituting grounds for divorce.

The testimony presented by the record fails to establish the fact that the defendant was guilty of any particular act or acts which are recognized as grounds for divorce in this State. The nearest approach to such evidence is the testimony that when defendant was accused of having been guilty of certain acts in a general way he admitted that the charge was true. An admission or confession on the part of a defendant in a divorce proceeding that he has been guilty of some act which is recognized as a ground for divorce without any substantive evidence of the commission of the particular act of that character is not sufficient or proper to authorize the court to dissolve the bonds of matrimony. See Hall v. Hall, decided by this Court in April, 1927, reported in 112 Sou. 622.

The decree should be reversed and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Exhibit 32.1








Certification Pursuant to
Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title 18 of the United
States Code








I, Kerry
W. Boekelheide, the Chief Executive Officer of Summit Hotel Properties, LLC
(“Summit”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the accompanying Form 10-Q of
Summit for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Summit.











/s/
      Kerry W. Boekelheide
              Kerry
      W. Boekelheide
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Summit
      Hotel Properties, LLC
              
              November
      15, 2010
CONSENT OF EXPERT


I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name, Warwick S. Board, P.Geo., and report, NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Pirquitas Mine, Jujuy Province, Argentina dated December 23, 2011 (the “ Report ”), and the information contained in my Report, as described or incorporated by reference in (i) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014, and (ii) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-185498, 333-196116 and 333-198092), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.


Dated this 24th day of March, 2015.


Yours very sincerely,





/s/ Warwick S. Board


Warwick S. Board, P.Geo








---



CONSENT OF EXPERT


I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name, R. Bruce Kennedy, P.E., and report, NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Pirquitas Mine, Jujuy Province, Argentina dated December 23, 2011 (the “ Report ”), and the information contained in my Report, as described or incorporated by reference in (i) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014, and (ii) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-185498, 333-196116 and 333-198092), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.


Dated this 24th day of March, 2015.


Yours very sincerely,





/s/ R. Bruce Kennedy


R. Bruce Kennedy, P.E.
STATE v. Donald Durrant FARROW

341P12-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Donald Durrant Farrow, for Farrow, Donald Durrant.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of November 2017 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

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

Ervin, J. recused
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20163]



[[Page 58740]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[UTU75761, UTU76326]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Leases, UT

August 25, 2005.
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Title IV of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty 
Management Act (Pub. L. 97-451), Eclipse Exploration Corporation filed 
a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas leases UTU75761 and 
UTU76326 for lands in Grand County, Utah, and it was accompanied by all 
required rentals and royalties accruing from April 1, 2003 and October 
1, 2003, respectively, the dates of termination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David H. Murphy, Acting Chief, Branch 
of Fluid Minerals at (801) 539-4070.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lessee has agreed to new lease terms for 
rentals and royalties at rates of $5 per acre and 16\2/3\ percent, 
respectively. The $500 administrative fee for the lease has been paid 
and the lessee has reimbursed the Bureau of Land Management for the 
cost of publishing this notice.
    Having met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as 
set out in as amended by Section 371(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005, Title III, the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease UTU75761 effective April 1, 2003, and lease UTU76326 
effective October 1, 2003, subject to the original terms and conditions 
of the leases and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

David H. Murphy,
Acting Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals.
[FR Doc. 05-20163 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DK-P
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000041812-JUL-201102:17 PM
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4688 

To amend the Second Chance Act of 2007 to reauthorize the grants program 

carried out by the Secretary of Labor to provide mentoring, job training 

and job placement services, and other comprehensive transitional services 

to assist eligible offenders in obtaining and retaining employment, and 

to require a study on best practices by nonprofit organization participating in such grants program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

Mr. SESTAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Second Chance Act of 2007 to reauthorize 

the grants program carried out by the Secretary of Labor 

to provide mentoring, job training and job placement 

services, and other comprehensive transitional services 

to assist eligible offenders in obtaining and retaining 

employment, and to require a study on best practices 

by nonprofit organization participating in such grants 

program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4688 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Reintegra3 tion and Crime Prevention Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF REINTEGRATION OF OF5 FENDERS GRANTS PROGRAM. 

6 (1) BEST PRACTICES REPORTS.—Section 212 of 

7 the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17532) 

8 is amended— 

9 (A) in subsection (b), by adding at the end 

10 the following new sentence: ‘‘For grants award11 ed for periods beginning on or after January 1, 

12 2012, a grant recipient under this section shall 

13 comply with the best practices identified pursu14 ant to subsection (g).’’; and 

15 (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the 

16 following new subsection (and redesignating 

17 subsections (g) and (h) as subsections (h) and 

18 (i), respectively): 

19 ‘‘(g) BEST PRACTICE REPORT.—Not later than Jan20 uary 1, 2011, the Attorney General, in coordination with 

21 the Secretary of Labor, shall prepare a report identifying, 

22 based on the information submitted pursuant to sub23 section (f), best practices of nonprofit organizations under 

24 this section. The Attorney General shall make such report 

25 publicly available.’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4688 IH

1 (2) PROGRAM REAUTHORIZED THROUGH

2 2012.—Subsection (i) of section 212 of such Act (42 

3 U.S.C. 17532), as redesignated by paragraph (1), is 

4 amended by inserting at the end before the period 

5 the following: ‘‘and $30,000,000 for each of fiscal 

6 years 2011 and 2012’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.1

 

May 22, 2013

 

Fossil, Inc.

Attn: Kosta N. Kartsotis

901 S. Central Expressway
 Richardson, Texas 75080

 

Re:                             Acceptance to Serve as an Advisory Director and Election to Decline Participation in the Fossil, Inc. 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan

 

Dear Kosta:

 

This letter is to serve as my acceptance of the position as “Advisory Director” to Fossil, Inc. (the “Company”) for a term of one (1) year, to expire on the date of the Annual Meeting of Stockholders in 2014.

 

I understand that by serving as an Advisory Director, I will remain an “outside director” for purposes of the Fossil, Inc. 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2008 Plan”) and a “nonemployee director” for purposes of the Fossil, Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan (the “1993 Plan”), and that I have not suffered a termination of service for purposes of the 2008 Plan and 1993 Plan.  In addition, I understand that all of the outstanding stock options granted to me, as of the date hereof, will continue to remain in effect as the option agreements are written.

 

Lastly, this letter serves as my election to decline participation in the 2008 Plan.  I understand and agree that by declining to participate in the 2008 Plan I shall not be entitled to any further annual automatic director grants made pursuant to the 2008 Plan that would otherwise be available to me as an outside director of the Company.

 

	
 
    	
Sincerely,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/   Michael Steinberg
    
	
 
    	
Michael   Steinberg
    


 

	
Accepted:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Kosta N. Kartsotis
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
Kosta N. Kartsotis
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Intermountain Community Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Curt
Hecker, Chief Executive Officer, and Doug Wright, Chief Financial Officer,
certify, 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.

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.

Date: May 12, 2005

/s/ Curt Hecker                                         /s/ Doug Wright
-----------------------                                 ------------------------
Curt Hecker                                             Doug Wright
Chief Executive Officer                                 Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

KRISTOPHER LIONEL GOLDTOOTH,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 10170

D.C. No. 3:12

- cr

- 08148

- PGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018 * *

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Kristopher Lionel Goldtooth appeals the district court ’s judgment revoking

his supervised release and challenges the 24

- month sentence i mposed upon

revocation . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Goldtooth contends that the district court improperly based its imposition of

* This disposition i s not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 10170

the statutory maximum sentence on punitive factors. Because Goldtooth did not

raise this objection in the district court, we review for plain error. See United

States v. Valencia

- Barrag an , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). We concl ude

that there is no error of any kind . T he record demonstrates that the district court

correctly sanctioned “primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking into

account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the

criminal history of the violator.” U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, P t. A( 3 ) (b); s ee also United

States v. Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) ( district court may “properly

look to and consider the conduct underlying the revocation as one of many acts

contributing to the severity of the violator’s breach of trust so as not to preclude a

full review of the violator’s history and the violator’s likelihood of repeating that

history” ).

Goldtooth also argues that his se ntence is substantively unreasonable. We

conclude that the above

- Guidelines

, 24

- month sentence is substantively reasonable

in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of

the circumstances, including Goldtooth’s repeated violations of the terms of his

supervised release. See United States v. Leonard , 483 F.3d 635, 637 (9th Cir.

2007)

.

AFFIRMED.
May 15, 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MOON SUN (CASEY) KAN G

, KATHLEEN (KATIE) LEE, and SANG PIL (SCOTT) LEE, Appellant s

NO. 14

- 13

- 00086

- CV V. NO. 14

- 13

- 00088

- CV

BRUCE W. DERRICK , Appellee

________________________________ Th ese cause s , appeal s from the final judgment in favor of app ellee, Bruce W. Derrick, signed November 27, 2012, were heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspec ted the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellants, Moon Sun (Casey) Kang, Kathleen (Katie) Lee, and Sang Pil (Scott) Lee, jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appe al.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-22-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,003
<INVENTORY>                                     37,702
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,796
<PP&E>                                         223,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 492,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,191
<BONDS>                                        321,089
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,339
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   492,886
<SALES>                                        146,003
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,003
<CGS>                                          106,748
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  106,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   344
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,973
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,903
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,893
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,010
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,010
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 90-540 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1991

AUGUSTA GEIGER, Plaintiff and Appellant,-vsDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Dawson, The Honorable 

### H. R. Obert, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: John Houtz, Forsyth,Montana For Respondent: R. Bruce McGinnis, Tax Counsel, Dept. of Revenue, Helena, Montana 

# ED Submitted on Briefs: July 16, 1991 

### AUG

## 27

## 3999 id&: August 

### 27, 1991 Filed: 

# L'A3)mitL CLERKOF SUPREMECOURl S'TATEOF MONTANA 4 Clerk

### Justice Fred J. 

### Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. September 27, 1990 the District Court of the SeventhJudicial District,Dawson County issued an order dismissing theplaintiff's original complaint. We reverse and remand. Theprimary issue for review is restated as follows: Did the courtmistakenly dismiss the original complaint? September 4, 1984, the plaintiff, Augusta Geiger (Geiger), filed a complaint against the Dawson County Commissioners and the Montana Department of Revenue (DOR). On September 27, 1984, the DOR filed amotion todismissand supportingbrief. The court took no action on themotion to dismiss at that time. The trial courtdismissedtheDawson CountyCommissionersfrom this action on July 7, 1988. The dismissal occurred as a result of a successful appeal by the Dawson County Commissioners, and a 

### favorable ruling in Cantwell v. Geiger (1987), 228 Mont. 330, 

### 742 P.2d 468. On February 14, 1990, the District Court granted permission to amend the complaint and Geiger filed and served the amended complaint. February 21, 1990, following this filing the DORmoved the court to reconsider its order allowing Geiger to amend. Both parties submitted briefs; however, the court took no action on the issue at that time. July 11, 1990, along with counsel, the court signed a pretrial order setting out 39 contentions on behalf of the plaintiff and 53 

### contentionsonbehalf of thedefendant. Thepre-trial order 2L stated that it superseded the pleadings and "that all pleadings herein shall be amended to conform to this pre-trial order." Finally, on September 27, 1990, after a hearing, the court dismissed the original complaint based on the DORIS motion to dismiss dated September 27, 1984. The record does not indicate that the court considered the amended complaint or the pre-trial order which took the place of the pleadings. We concludethattheDistrict Court acted inappropriately when it dismissed Geiger's case in total disregard of its previous orders. We hold that it was error for the District Court to dismiss the original complaint. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration in a matter consistentwith this opinion. Pursuant to Section I,Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shallbe published by its filingas

### apublic document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the West Publishing Company.

We Concur: 

# -7j4[L2g Chief JustiJustices

Justice R. C. McDonough did not participate in this decision.