alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORIO C. FUNTANILLA, Jr.,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

KEN CLARK, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-15479

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01181-LJO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 10, 2010** 

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Gregorio C. Funtanilla, Jr. appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We

FILED

SEP 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the district 1

court properly dismissed Funtanilla’s habeas petition as untimely, and whether the

district court abused its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing

regarding Funtanilla’s entitlement to equitable tolling.

2 09-15479

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. 1

The district court did not err when it dismissed Funtanilla’s habeas petition

as untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Even if Funtanilla were entitled to

equitable tolling from the time he discovered the factual predicate of his claim until

he filed his first state habeas petition, his federal petition was untimely. Equitable

tolling would have ended on January 27, 2003, when Funtanilla filed his state

habeas petition, as he was capable of pursuing habeas relief as of that date. See

Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2005), modified on other

grounds by 447 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2006). The Kings County Superior Court

concluded his state habeas petition was untimely, and therefore that petition did not

toll AEDPA’s limitations period because it was not properly filed. See Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005) (“Because the state court rejected

petitioner’s [postconviction] petition as untimely, it was not ‘properly filed,’ and

he is not entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2).”); Bonner v. Carey, 425

F.3d 1145, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying Pace to California’s timeliness rule

for postconviction petitions), as amended, 439 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2006). 
3 09-15479

Accordingly, AEDPA’s limitations period expired on January 27, 2004, more than

two and a half years before Funtanilla filed his 2006 federal habeas petition. 

Because Funtanilla’s federal petition was untimely regardless of equitable tolling,

there was no basis for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Roy v.

Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that a habeas petitioner should

receive an evidentiary hearing when allegations, if true, would entitle him to

equitable tolling).

AFFIRMED.
exh_402.htm


Exhibit 4.02


 


 


 





 




  





  











  







CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT




OF THE




RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION




OF




AMYRIS, INC.







Amyris, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”),







DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOLLOWING:







FIRST:            That the name of the Corporation is Amyris, Inc.







SECOND:       That the date on which the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was originally filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware is April 15, 2010 under the name Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc.







THIRD:           That, at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the “Board”), the Board duly adopted resolutions setting forth the following proposed amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and directing the Corporation to submit said amendment to the annual meeting of the stockholders of said Corporation for consideration thereof, and that, thereafter, pursuant to such resolutions, the Corporation submitted the amendment to the stockholders of the Corporation at the annual meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation duly called and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the Delaware General Corporation Law at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of said amendment:







Section 1 of Article IV of the Corporation’s Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:







“1.           Total Authorized.  The total number of shares of all classes of stock that the corporation has authority to issue is Two-Hundred and Five Million (205,000,000) shares, consisting of two classes:  Two-Hundred Million (200,000,000) shares of Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share, and Five Million (5,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, $0.0001 par value per share.”







FOURTH:       That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be signed by its Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary this 9th day of May, 2013 and the foregoing facts stated herein are true and correct.







AMYRIS, INC.












By: /s/ Gary Loeb


Name: Gary Loeb


Title: SVP, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS FOR FORM 10-K**
I, Everett R. Dobson, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Cellular Corporation (the“registrant”);  2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this annual report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 (a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.       AMERICAN CELLULAR CORPORATION
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4664 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4664

    To amend the method by which the Social Security Administration 
   determines the validity of marriages under title II of the Social 
                             Security Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2014

   Mr. Kind (for himself, Ms. Schwartz, and Ms. Esty) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the method by which the Social Security Administration 
   determines the validity of marriages under title II of the Social 
                             Security Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security and Marriage 
Equality Act''.

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF VALID MARRIAGE UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 216(h)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 416(h)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``is domiciled'' and 
all that follows through ``the District of Columbia,'' and inserting 
``and such applicant were married (or, if such insured individual and 
such applicant were not married in any State but were validly married 
in another jurisdiction, the courts of any State)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to all final determinations of family status made after June 26, 
2013.
                                 <all>
```
HOLCOMBE, et al. v. OAK ISLAND AIRCRAFT HOUSING, LLC, et al.

170P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2018

Christopher A. Chleborowicz, Elijah A.T. Huston, Attorneys at Law, for 717, NC, LLC, et al.

G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, For Holcombe, Claudia, et al.

Randolph M. James, Attorney at Law, For Stephenson, Kevin W.

Charles D. Meier, Kimberly L. Moore, Attorneys at Law, For Martin, Robert, et al.

Dawn Walton, for State.

Benedict J. Del Re, Jr., Attorney at Law, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of June 2018 by Defendant (Kevin W. Stephenson) to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES EDWARD MCMILLON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CR-98-105-BO, CA-01-366-5-BO)

Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Edward McMillon, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward McMillon seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. McMillon, Nos. CR-98-105-BO;

CA-01-366-5-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 31, 2001; entered Sept. 4,

2001). 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
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gary Bishop, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Environmental
      Control Corp. for the period ended June 30, 2008 (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 Environmental Control Corp.                                                                

Dated: August 14, 2008

| | /s/
      Gary Bishop                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | Gary Bishop                                                
| | Chief Financial Officer and Director                       
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting
| | Officer)                                                   
| | Environmental Control Corp.                                

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental
Control Corp. and will be retained by Environmental Control Corp. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 03, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 03, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0263. MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HAMENT DESAI et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2019CV323401
Anita Cook MCGUIRE, Plaintiff, v. Daniel R. OLSON and Carroll B. Olson, Defendants.

No. COA18-44

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

AFFIRMED.
EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT RENEWAL AND AMENDMENT


 




Exhibit 10.1




EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT RENEWAL AND AMENDMENT




THIS AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into on May 17, 2013 by and between Lightwave Logic, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (the “Company”), located at 111 Ruthar Dr., Newark, Delaware19711; and James S. Marcelli (“Employee”).  




1.

This Agreement renews and amends that certain Employee Agreement dated August 1, 2008, as amended on July 9, 2009, June 18, 2010, May 2, 2012 and May 21, 2012 made and entered into by the parties hereto (the “Employee Agreement”). Capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as used in the Employee Agreement, unless otherwise noted.




2.

Effective August 1, 2013, Paragraph 1.2 of Article One is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 




1.2

Term. Subject to the provisions for termination as provided in Article 9 of this Employee Agreement, the term of this Employee Agreement shall begin on August 1, 2013 and shall terminate on July 31, 2015. This Employee Agreement may be renewed for additional twelve (12) month terms upon the written agreement of the parties hereto that shall be delivered by each party to the other not less than 60 days prior to the expiration of the existing term.




3.

Effective August 1, 2013, Paragraph 4.1 of Article Four is amended to read as follows: 




4.1. 

Base Compensation.  For all services rendered by Employee under this Employee Agreement, the Company agrees to pay Employee the rate of $215,000 per year, which shall be payable to Employee not less frequently than monthly, or as is consistent with the Company’s practice for its other employees.  




4.

Item VI. shall be inserted into Appendix B of the Employee Agreement, which shall read as follows:




Additional Option Grant:




Options: 

100,000 (non-qualified)   

Grant Date:

05/17/2013

Expiration Date:

05/16/2023

Exercise Price:

$1.00  

Vesting Schedule:

The options vest in equal installments of 25,000 options, with the first installment vesting on August 1, 2013, and the remaining installments vesting quarterly commencing on October 1, 2013. The options grant shall be made pursuant to the Company’s 2007 Employee Stock Plan and subject to the terms of the Plan’s standard non-statutory stock option agreement.








 







5.

All other provisions of the Employee Agreement remain in full force and effect, other than any provision that conflicts with the terms and spirit of this Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date first written above.




				
	 
	 
	LIGHTWAVE LOGIC, INC.:


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Steve Cordovano

	 
	By: 

	/s/ Thomas E. Zelibor


	(Witness signature)

	 
	 
	Thomas E. Zelibor, CEO


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	EMPLOYEE:


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Gloria Marcelli

	 
	/s/ James S. Marcelli


	(Witness signature)

	 
	James S. Marcelli
EXHIBIT 23.1

                            ACCOUNTANT'S CONSENT
                            --------------------

The Board of Directors
theglobe.com, inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-79677)  on Form S-8 of  theglobe.com,  inc. of our report dated January
28, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of theglobe.com, inc.
and  subsidiaries  as of  December  31,  1999  and  1998,  and the  related
consolidated   statements   of   operations,   stockholders'   equity   and
comprehensive  loss and cash flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 1999, and related financial  statement  schedule,
which report  appears in the December 31, 1999,  annual report on Form 10-K
of theglobe.com, inc.

                                                               /s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2000
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed March 26, 2013. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00121-CV

____________

THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant

V.

STEVE WILLAMS, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2002-22690A

A B A T E M E N T O R D E R

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment signed November 16, 

2012. On March 12, 2013, appellant filed a motion to stay the appeal pending a 

decision by the Texas Supreme Court in a related case, City of Houston v. Bates, 

No. 11-0778, which was argued before the high court on January 9, 2013.

Appellant asserts that the decision in Bates will control the outcome of this appeal. 

Appellees have filed a response to the motion, agreeing to the abatement but 

requesting a limited abatement period.
2

We GRANT appellant’s motion. We order the appeal ABATED pending a 

decision by the Texas Supreme Court in City of Houston v. Bates, No. 11-00778, 

or until further order of this court.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The court will consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal 

filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Eric Smit, the chief financial officer of eGain Communications Corporation (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that,
to my knowledge,

(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2011
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



/s/    ERIC
N. SMITEric N. SmitSeptember 27, 2011


A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to
eGain Communications Corporation and will be retained by eGain Communications Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
In the MATTER OF: L.T.

No. 418P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Mr. David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for L.T.

Mr. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Ms. Josephine N. Tetteh, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Milind Kumar Dongre, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina

Ms. Ariel E. Harris, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Strategic Behavioral Center *244***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Respondent on the 12th of December 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th of December 2017 by Respondent 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 of May 2018."
##### 



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 quarterly report of Atlantic Coast Federal Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jon C.
Parker, Sr. Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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 as amended; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 16, 2005 /s/ Jon C. Parker, Sr.Jon C. Parker, Sr.
Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
 31.