alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HOC EVENTS, INC., DBA SUPERTOOL USA,

Defendant

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

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JUGGERNAUT TACTICAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2021-1963, 2021-1987

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in Nos. 2:19-cv-02736-JLSDFM, 8:18-cv-01378-JLS-DFM, Judge Josephine L. Staton.

______________________

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND 

REHEARING EN BANC

______________________

Case: 21-1963 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 03/18/2022
2 EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC.

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, 

PROST, REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, STOLL, and 

CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.1

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Juggernaut Tactical, Inc. filed a combined petition for 

panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The petition was 

referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter 

the petition for rehearing en banc was referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition for panel rehearing is denied.

The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

The panel makes one change in its opinion, which is 

unrelated to the rehearing petition. Footnote 1 is replaced 

with the following:

On October 26, 2021, the district court issued an 

order granting attorney’s fees to Juggernaut as a 

“prevailing party” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and directing Juggernaut to submit a proposed amendment to the earlier judgment to incorporate the fees 

award—thus making clear that the October 26th 

order was not going to “be the court’s final act in 

the matter.” S.L. ex rel. Loof v. Upland Unified 

School Dist., 747 F.3d 1155, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 

2014) (cleaned up). On November 24, 2021, after 

Juggernaut made the submission, the court issued 

an amended final judgment incorporating the 

1 Circuit Judge O’Malley retired on March 11, 2022.

Case: 21-1963 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 03/18/2022
EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 3

award of attorney’s fees. On December 1, 2021, 

within 30 days of the November 24th judgment, 

Evolusion timely filed an amended notice of appeal 

to include, in Appeal No. 21-1987, the district 

court’s final judgment granting attorney’s fees to 

Juggernaut. Juggernaut has not objected to inclusion of that judgment in Appeal No. 21-1987.

This change does not alter the court’s judgment, and no 

new judgment will be issued.

The mandate of the court will issue on March 25, 2022.

 

March 18, 2022 

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

 

 

Case: 21-1963 Document: 48 Page: 3 Filed: 03/18/2022
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 19

- 10877 Conference Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus

Jason Jaime,

Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 6

- 34

Before Dennis, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

The attorney appointed to represent Jason Jaime 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). Jaime has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 16, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10877 Document: 00515902343 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2021No. 19

- 10877

2 relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 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 5th Cir. R. 42.2

. Case: 19-10877 Document: 00515902343 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2021
### No. 13113 INTHE SUPREME 

### COURT OF 

### THE STATE 

### OF MONTANA 

### 1976

JACK B. 

### GEHRING, 

### Plaintiff and Appellant,

W. 

### E. WARNER: 

### AllState of Montana Department of Revenue Employees and/or agents, Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court 

### of the FirstJudicial District, Hon. Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: 

### For Appellant: 

### Jack Gehring, Pro Se, Helena, Montana For Kespondents: R. 

### Bruce McGinnis, Helena, Montana Argument Submitted on Briefs

Submitted: January 26, 1976 Decided:

# 3It.PER CURIAM: Plaintiff filed a petition inthe district court, Lewis and Clark County, seeking injunctive relief against the Montana Department of Revenue and its agents. The district court dismissed the petition for failure to statea claim. Plaintiff appeals from this dismissal. Plaintiff is Jack B. Gehring who filed 

### a petition pro



### se inthe district court inwhich he " 

## * * * requests a injunction torestrain defendants from injuring inany way Jack B. Gehring life, libertyor property without a trial by jury." and 

### " 

## * 

# * * from proceeding with any future, present proceedings in any communations, leins, sales and to include any other such action

## * * 

## *." Defendants filed a motion todismiss the petition or complaint on the ground that it failed to statea 

### claimupon which relief could be granted. Following a hearing atwhich plaintiff was given an opportunity to bring out the factsunderlying his claim for relief, the district court, the Hon. Nat Allen, districtjudge presiding, granted themotion todismiss. An order and judgment of dismissal 

### was entered on July 

### 1, 1975. Plaintiff a~peals. The issue on appeal iswhether plaintiff's petition or complaint was properly dismissed. Weaffirm the district court's dismissal. The petition or complaint fails to 

### state any facts entitling plaintiff to injunctive relief asrequired by section 93-4205, R.C.M. 1947. No statement or allegations aremade concerning what the department of revenue or 

### its agents isdoing or threatening todo. Apparently there is some dispute or conflict between plaintiff and the department of revenue but 

### we are left in the dark astowhat 

### it 

### is.The districtjudge pointed this out toplaintiff at the hearing: "JUDGE ALLEN: Mr. Gehring, I don't see facts in this petition, do you? "MR. GEHRING: The factthat they wanted to 

### sell my property 

### is enough fact. "JUDGE ALLEN: It doesn't say that inthis petition. What property and where does 

### it say anything about it? "MR. GEHRING: I would not know. "JUDGE ALLEN: If you don't know thisCourt doesn't know. The motion 

### is sustained and this case is dismissed and thisCourt 

### is adjourned." No factual basis for injunctive relief appearing, the petition or complaint of the plaintiff was properly dismissed by the district court. Affirmed

# .
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darnell TURNER.

No. 2003-KK-1837.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 2003.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 01-0430; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-K-764.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., recused.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.
Robert and Patricia/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 7, 2014

No. 04-14-00083-CV

Mike and Geri JONES,

Appellants

v.

Robert and Patricia ZEARFOSS,

Appellees

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-00986-CV-A

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. 

The appellee’s brief is due on September 5, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
ex4-3.htm


EXHIBIT 4.3




 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


THE AMENDED AND RESTATED 2005 STOCK AWARDS PLAN OF


FREQUENCY ELECTRONICS, INC.


 


    WHEREAS, FREQUENCY ELECTRONICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), adopted the Amended and Restated 2005 Stock Awards Plan of Frequency Electronics, Inc. (the “Plan”), effective June 23, 2005, and which it is now deemed desirable to amend said Plan.


 


    WHEREAS, on July 13, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Company, based on the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan, subject to stockholder approval, to increase the number of shares of common stock available for issuance under the Plan by an additional 400,000 shares and, on October 11, 2011, the stockholders of the Company approved the amendment.


 


    NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by the undersigned that the said Plan is hereby amended in the following manner:


 


1.           Section 4.1(a) (“Stock Subject to Plan”) shall be amended by deleting “400,000” and inserting in lieu thereof “800,000”.


 


2.           In all other respects, except as hereinbefore modified, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed, the within amendment to be effective as of October 11, 2011.


 


3.           The validity, construction and effect of this amendment shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of New York without giving effect to principles of conflicts of laws, and applicable federal law.


 


 


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed by the Company as of the day, month and year set forth in Section 2 of this amendment.


 



	  	
FREQUENCY ELECTRONICS, INC.


	  	  
	
By:

	
/s/ Alan Miller                                                                         


	
Name:

	
Alan Miller


	
Title

	
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Gramercy Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qas filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Robert R. Foley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Gramercy.
| /s/ Robert R. Foley |                    |
|---------------------|-------------------------|
| Name:               | Robert R. Foley         |
| Title:              | Chief Financial Officer |
|                |                    |
| May 10, 2006   |
|                     |                         |  |

 

----
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C 280A/9 ta

| | ISSN 1977-0987 |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  tal-Unjoni Ewropea | C 280A |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 669 ta' Awwissu 2023 |

ISSN 1977-0987

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 280A

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 669 ta' Awwissu 2023

---

| Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Avviżi |
| | PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI |
| | L-Uffiċċju Ewropew għas-Selezzjoni tal-Persunal (EPSO) |
| 2023/C 280 A/01 | Avviż li jemenda l-avviż ta’ kompetizzjoni miftuħa — EPSO/AD/402/23 — Amministraturi (AD 6) fl-oqsma li ġejjin: 1. Mikroekonomija/makroekonomija 2. Ekonomija finanzjarja 3. Ekonomija industrijali ( ĠU C 220 A, 22.6.2023 ) | 1 |

Werrej

Paġna

V   Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

L-Uffiċċju Ewropew għas-Selezzjoni tal-Persunal (EPSO)

2023/C 280 A/01

Avviż li jemenda l-avviż ta’ kompetizzjoni miftuħa — EPSO/AD/402/23 — Amministraturi (AD 6) fl-oqsma li ġejjin: 1. Mikroekonomija/makroekonomija 2. Ekonomija finanzjarja 3. Ekonomija industrijali ( ĠU C 220 A, 22.6.2023 )

( ĠU C 220 A, 22.6.2023 )

1

---

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

V Avviżi

PROĊEDURI AMMINISTRATTIVI

L-Uffiċċju Ewropew għas-Selezzjoni tal-Persunal (EPSO)

| 9.8.2023 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea | CA 280/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2023

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

CA 280/1

---

Avviż li jemenda l-avviż ta’ kompetizzjoni miftuħa — EPSO/AD/402/23 — Amministraturi (AD 6) fl-oqsma li ġejjin: 1. Mikroekonomija/makroekonomija 2. Ekonomija finanzjarja 3. Ekonomija industrijali

(
  Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea C 220 A tat-22 ta’ Ġunju 2023
  )

(2023/C 280 A/01)

Fil-paġna 1,

| minflok: | “Data ta’ skadenza għall-applikazzjoni: il-25 ta’ Lulju 2023 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell”, |
| --- | --- |

minflok:

“Data ta’ skadenza għall-applikazzjoni: il-25 ta’ Lulju 2023 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell”,

| aqra: | “Data ta’ skadenza għall-applikazzjoni: is-26 ta’ Lulju 2023 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell”; |
| --- | --- |

aqra:

aqra

“Data ta’ skadenza għall-applikazzjoni: is-26 ta’ Lulju 2023 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell”;

Fil-paġna 5,

| minflok: | “Il-kandidati jridu japplikaw online fuq is-
  sit web tal-EPSO (2)
  sal- 25 ta’ Lulju 2023 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell.”, |
| --- | --- |

minflok:

minflok

“Il-kandidati jridu japplikaw online fuq is-
  sit web tal-EPSO (2)
  sal- 25 ta’ Lulju 2023 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell.”,

| aqra: | “Il-kandidati jridu japplikaw online fuq is-
  sit web tal-EPSO (2) sas-26 ta’ Lulju 2023 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell.”. |
| --- | --- |

aqra:

aqra

“Il-kandidati jridu japplikaw online fuq is-
  sit web tal-EPSO (2) sas-26 ta’ Lulju 2023 f’12.00 (nofsinhar), ħin ta’ Brussell.”.

---

(2)  https://epso.europa.eu/mt/job-opportunities/open-for-application

2

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

J.D.S.,

 Appellant,

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY

PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00191-CV

Appeal from

109th District Court

of Andrews County, Texas

(TC # 19,198)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

It has been determined that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal; therefore, this 

Court makes no other order with respect to the payment of costs on appeal. This decision shall 

be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
Motion Dismissed as Moot and Order filed September 1, 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00143

- CR

____________ BABATUNDE MOSOPE ADENIYI , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Cou rt Fort Bend County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. 19

- DCR

- 089609



### ORDER

A supplemental clerk ’ s record filed May 3, 2022
, i n this appeal reflects Patrick McCann was appointed to represent appellant on May 2, 2022. Subseq u ently, t wo ex tensions of time to file appellant ’ s brief were granted to July 29, 2022. When we granted the last extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional circ umstances. Appell an t ’ s brief was not filed and on August 2, 2022, notice was s ent. On August 1 6, 2022, a third motion for
extension of time was filed , requesting sixty more days to file appe llant ’ s brief.The motion states that a request for the reporter ’ s record has now been made

and the trial court directed the court reporter to prepare the recor d. Appellant ’ s motion to extend time to file appell ant ’ s brief is therefore moot and the motion is
dismissed

. As of this date, t he court has not received a request to extend time for filing
the record from the court reporter. Accordingly, w e order Mariso l Ramos , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
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
Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the Report), I, John Fanelli III, Senior Vice President and 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), as applicable 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/ John Fanelli IIIJohn Fanelli IIISenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer


Dated: August 9, 2011
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6901
ROBERT LORENZO COFFEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RAYMOND SMITH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-677) Submitted: September 24, 2002 Decided: October 10, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lorenzo Coffey, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Lorenzo Coffey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Coffey has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Coffey v. Smith , No. CA-01-677 (W.D.N.C. May 16, 2002). Although Coffey contends that his motion to voluntarily dismiss, filed on February 24, 2000, is still pending before the state court, the issue raised in that motion was fully considered and disposed of by the court in its order denying the motion to vacate on June 27, 2000. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
Memo









Exhibit 10.9




 




Memo




 




 




To:                                              Executive Officers




                                                                Capital Corp of the West/County

Bank




 




From:                               Tom Hawker




 




Date:                                   February 14, 2001




 




Subject:                   Additional Benefits




 




 




It is with great pleasure that I

inform you of two significant additional benefits that our Board has approved

for the Management Team in recognition of the Company’s overall

performance.  The Board has endeavored

to provide our team with benefits on par with our peers that is greatly

appreciated.




 




Effective immediatley, you are

covered by a one year severance package in the case of change of control with

that being defined in the same language as your Salary Continuation Plan.  While we do not expect that to be an issue,

it is gratifying that our Board has been considerate of this potential.




 




We have completed three years of

increasing earnings and are poised to add number four.  The Board and I are pleased to be able to

add these additional benefits for you in recognition of your contributions to

our success.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (File No. 333-51926) and Forms S-8 (File No. 333-44794, 333-38078,
and 333-93423) pertaining to the 2000 International Stock Option Plan, the
1997 Stock Option Plan, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the 1999
Nonemployee Directors Stock Option Plan of Maxygen, Inc., of our report dated
February 2, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Maxygen, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000.

                                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 20, 2001
DENY; and Opinion Filed August 25, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 01053
- CV IN RE 3334
- 3336 ROSEDALE, LLC , Relator Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 14
- 05776 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Lewis Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial court to vacate its July 25, 2014 order denying its motion to expunge the lis pendens filed by real parties in interest. The facts are well

- known to the parties, so we do not recount them here. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Because relator has failed to establish its right t o mandamus relief, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 52.8(a).

141053F.P05 /David Lewis/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE