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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SHASTA CASEY HOWELL, aka Shasta Casey Howell McCallum,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1775

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:24-cv-00362-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.

______________________

Before STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In response to this court’s May 15, 2024 show cause order, the United States urges dismissal. Shasta Casey Howell has not filed a response, though the court has received 

other filings from Ms. Howell in the interim.

Ms. Howell filed a notice of appeal from the United 

States Court of Federal Claims’s denial of any relief requested in her letter dated March 25, 2024, and from the 

court’s rejection of one of her other filings. Meanwhile at 

Case: 24-1775 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 07/10/2024
2 HOWELL v. US

the trial court, Ms. Howell has moved for summary judgment and the United States has moved to dismiss. Both 

motions remain pending.

In general, we only have jurisdiction over “an appeal 

from a final decision of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (emphasis added). A final 

decision “is one which ends the litigation on the merits and 

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). 

Here, no such decision has been entered, and Ms. Howell 

does not identify, and the court is not aware of, any other 

basis for this court’s review of the challenged actions at this 

time. If necessary, Ms. Howell may seek this court’s review 

by filing a timely notice of appeal after a final decision has 

been entered in her case.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

July 10, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 24-1775 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 07/10/2024
Leatt Corp.: Exhibit 10.14 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com


    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    1

    

    

    2

    

    AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO DIRECTOR AGREEMENT

    

    This AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO DIRECTOR AGREEMENT, effective as of January 1, 2022 (this "Third Amendment"), is by and between Leatt Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the "Company") and Mr. Jeffrey Guzy in his capacity as a director on the Company's board of directors (the "Director"). Each of the parties hereto are referred to as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." Capitalized terms used, but not otherwise defined, herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Original Agreement (as defined below).

    BACKGROUND

    The Parties entered into a Director Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2017, pursuant to which, as amended, the Director agreed to serve on the Company's board of directors (the "Original Agreement"). The Parties now desire to enter into this Fourth Amendment to the Original Agreement as more specifically set forth herein.

    AGREEMENT

    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the Parties, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

    1. Amendment to Section 3(Compensation): Section 3 of the Original Agreement is deleted in its entirety and in lieu thereof the following provision is inserted:

    COMPENSATION. For all services to be rendered by the Director in any capacity hereunder, the Company agrees to pay the Director a base fee of Two Thousand United States Dollars (US$2,000.00) per month.

    2. Agreement. In all other respects, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

    3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

     

    1

    

     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Fourth Amendment to the Original Agreement as of the date first above written.

    

    2
Case 1:06-cv-14957-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      15,226,824
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,620,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                   113,000
<INVENTORY>                                    452,678
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,284,855
<PP&E>                                       3,687,786
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,220,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,804,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,601,260
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        97,151
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,804,470
<SALES>                                     13,577,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,577,420
<CGS>                                        2,721,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,721,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,530,398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             119,661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,794,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,794,573)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.34)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23





                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Solv-Ex Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No. 
333-01133 and No. 2-98871 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 
33-32958 on Form S-3 of Solv-Ex Corporation of our report dated September 10, 
1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Solv-Ex Corporation and 
subsidiaries as of June 30, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated 
statements of operations, stockholders  equity, and cash flows for each of 
the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 1996 and cumulative from 
July 2, 1980 (inception), which report appears in the June 30, 1996 annual 
report on Form 10-K of Solv-Ex Corporation.



                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP






Albuquerque, New Mexico
September 26, 1996
#### STATE v. JACKSON

No. 74 PC.

Case below: 8 N.C. App. 346.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 14 July 1970.
### NUM BER 13-98- 0037 4-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ PED RO M ONTA NO, M .D., A pp ellan t, v . DOL ORE S PO GUE , A pp ellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ On a p p ea l f ro m th e 13 9t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e Just i ces Yañez, R odri guez, and B enav i des

M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am T his app eal w as aba ted b y this Court on Dece mb er 3, 19 98, due to the ban kruptcy of one of the p arti es to t his appeal
. See11 U .S.C . § 362; see g ene rally T EX . R. A PP . P. 8. Si nce the a batementthere has been no acti v ity i n thi s a ppeal
. On A pr il 16, 2009, the Court orde red the p a rt ie s t o f ile an ad v isory regarding the statu s of the ap pea l and, if2

appl ic abl e, a moti on to rein sta te t he appeal or a moti on to dismi ss the appeal
. The order noti fied th e par

ti es that failu re to re spond to the o rd er w oul d resulti n rein sta tement and dis mis sal of the a ppeal for want o f pros ecut ion
. The par ti es hav e fail ed to respon d . Acc ordin g ly , w e rein sta te an d di smi ss the appeal for want o f pros ecut ion
. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 42 .3(b).
P E RC U R I A M Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 14th day

of Ma y , 200 9.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 EMULEX CORPORATION CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Emulex Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ended June 27, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul F. Folino,
the Chief Executive 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 to
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/ Paul F. FolinoPaul F. FolinoChief Executive OfficerSeptember 9, 2004
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Emulex Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ended June 27, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J.
Rockenbach, the 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 to 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/ Michael J. RockenbachMichael J. RockenbachChief Financial OfficerSeptember 9, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-6710 FENCEL O'HARA MARTIN, a/k/a Festus, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-88-76-N, CA-97-410-2) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 19, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Robert Edward Frank, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Charles DeeGriffith, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Appellant's conviction became final in 1990. On April 23, 1997, Appellant filed his § 2255 motion. The district court denied relief because Appellant filed his motion outside the one-year limitation period imposed by § 2255. Pursuant to our r ecent decision in Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998), Appellant had until April 23, 1997 to file a timely motion. Appellant's § 2255 motion was therefore timely. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue,vacate the district court's order, and remand this case for consideration on the merits. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
Exhibit 32.2

KINDER MORGAN, INC.

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 Kinder Morgan, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 Kinder Morgan, Inc. and will be retained by Kinder Morgan, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|                        |  |                                                            
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  August
	8, 2006 |  | /s/ Kimberly A. Dang                                       
|                        |  | Kimberly A. Dang
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-10      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 1 of 3

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-10      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 2 of 3

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 20-10      Filed 02/02/2005     Page 3 of 3
#### STATE v. STANBACK

No. 67 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 375.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 November 1973.
EX-10.36





 Exhibit 10.36 

THE FRESH MARKET HOLDINGS, INC. 

c/o Apollo Management VIII, L.P. 

9 West 57th Street 
 New
York, NY 10019 
 January 20, 2022 
 Dan Portnoy 

Chief Merchandising Officer 
 Re:    Stock
Option 
 Dear Dan: 
 We are pleased to inform you that we
have made certain favorable changes to the stock option that was previously granted to you pursuant to the Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) of The Fresh Market Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”). Specifically, your option
to purchase 400,000 shares that was granted on November 6, 2019 (“Option”) has been modified as follows: 
 (i)
Effective upon an IPO (as defined in the Plan) and provided you remain employed through the date of the IPO, your Option will vest as to 5% of the portion thereof that is unvested at the time of the IPO; and 

(ii) Effective upon an IPO, a number of shares equal to the shares underlying the portion of the Option that vests pursuant to the preceding
clause will be released from the transfer restrictions imposed by Section 9(a) of the Option Plan, provided that the foregoing will not be construed as releasing any shares that are non-transferable by
reason of a standstill agreement or related agreement entered into at the request of the managing underwriters of the IPO.     
 For
the avoidance of doubt, the shares released from the transfer restrictions will be treated as having been released pursuant to Section 5 of your option grant letter, and therefore will reduce the number of shares that may subsequently be
released upon an Investor Sale (as defined in such Section 5). 
 Except for these changes, your Option will remain in effect in accordance with its
terms. 
 Sincerely, 
 THE FRESH MARKET HOLDINGS, INC.

  
 



 
 Jason Potter, CEO
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

                               THIRD AMENDMENT TO
                             PLAINS RESOURCES INC.
                           1996 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


     Plains Resources Inc., having heretofore adopted the Plains Resources Inc.
1996 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") and having reserved the right under
Section 9 thereof to amend the Plan, does hereby amend the Plan, effective as of
June 7, 2000, as follows:

     Section 3.1 of Plains Resources Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive Plan shall be
amended to read as follows:

          3.1     The maximum number of Shares with respect to which Awards may
     be granted under the Plan is 1,650,000 (or the number and kind of shares of
     stock or other securities to which such Shares are adjusted upon a Change
     in Capitalization pursuant to Section 6 or 7) and the Company shall reserve
     for the purposes of the Plan, out of its authorized but unissued Shares or
     out of Shares held in the Company's treasury, or partly out of each, such
     number of Shares as shall be determined by the Board.

Adopted by the Board of Directors of Plains Resources Inc. on June 7, 2000.
YOU MUST BE 16 OR OLDER

TO WORK IN THIS AREA
Exhibit
10.12


 


AMENDMENT
No. 1 


TO


COLLABORATION
AGREEMENT 


BETWEEN


TUFTS
MEDICAL CENTER, INC 


AND


OKYO
PHARMA LIMITED


 






 


THIS
AMENDMENT is entered into as of the date of last signature below by and between Tufts Medical Center, Inc., a not-for-profit tax-exempt
corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its principal place of business at 800 Washington Street,
Boston, MA 02111 (“Tufts MC”), and Okyo Pharma Limited, a limited liability company incorporated and registered in Guernsey
whose registered office and principal place of business is at Martello Court, Admiral Park, St. Peter Port, Guernsey GYI 3HB (“OKYO”).


 


WHEREAS,
the parties entered into a Collaboration Agreement effective August 6, 2019 (hereinafter, the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the parties now wish to amend the Agreement, to extend the planned end date of the Research Plan, and revise the Term of the Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows


 


	 	1.
    	In
    Article I of the Agreement, the definition of “Term” is revised and replaced in its entirety with the following: “Term”
    has the meaning given to it in Section 8.1.” 
	 	 	 
	 	2.
    	Section
    8.1 of the Agreement is revised and replaced in its entirety with the following: “This Agreement shall come into effect on
    the Effective Date and shall continue until completion of the Parties’ substantive obligations under the Agreement in the performance
    of the Research Plan, unless extended or sooner terminated as provided herein (“Term”). 
	 	 	 
	 	3.
    	The
    first sentence of Schedule I of the Agreement shall be revised and replaced in its entirety with the following: “The proposed
    Research Plan that follows will be completed by April 5, 2021, for a budget of $203,315.” 
	 	 	 
	 	4.
    	This
    Amendment sets forth the entire amendment and modification to the Agreement intended by the parties. Further, this Amendment and
    the Agreement constitute the entire agreement and understanding of the parties relating to the subject matter contained therein.
    The amendments and modifications to the Agreement are specifically limited to the terms and conditions discussed herein. The remainder
    of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as agreed to by the parties, remains in full force and effect. 


 


SIGNATURE
PAGE TO FOLLOW


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this amendment to be executed as of the date last                .





 


	TUFTS
    MEDICAL CENTER, INC.	 	OKYO
    PHARMA LIMITED.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Nicholas
    Fleming, JD	 	 	 /s/
    Willy Simon 
	Name:	Nicholas
    Fleming, JD	 	Name:	 W.
    Simon 
	Title:	Manager,
    Grants & Contracts	 	Title:	 Chairman 
	Date:	November
    10, 2020	 	Date:	 November
    9, 2020 


 


REAL
AND ACKNOWLEDGED


 


	/s/ Pedram Hamrah, MD	 
	Name:	Pedram Hamrah, MD
	 
	Date:	11/10/2020
1

Affirm ance W ithout O pinion - M emor andum Opinio n. (b) The Court, w ith the con currenc e of all

judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum

opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum

opinion it shall be designated “MEMORA NDUM OPINION ,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or

relied on fo r any reas on in a su bseque nt unrelate d case. [A s amen ded by order filed April 22 , 1992.]

FILED

July 30, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appe llate Court C lerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

KENNETH RAY MAYFIELD, SR. ) BRADLEY CIRCUIT

)

Plaintiff/Appellee ) NO. 03A01-9803-CV-00112

)

v. ) HON. JOHN B. HAGLER, JR.

) JUDGE

NANCY PRECELLA MAYFIELD, )

)

Defendant/Appellant ) AFFIRMED

D. Mitchell Bryant, Cleveland, for the Appellant.

Appellee filed no brief and made no appearance.

MEMORANDUM O P I N I O N1

INMAN, Senior Judge

Nancy Precella Mayfield [“Wife”] appeals from the judgment of the trial

court granting her a divorce based upon the inappropriate marital conduct of

Kenneth Ray Mayfield, Sr. [ “Husband”]. She contends on appeal that the

settlement agreement was obtained through threats and coercion.

Wife appeared before the court with counsel on June 2, 1997 for a

hearing on a motion for temporary support. She again appeared on September

5, 1997 with counsel and, under oath, testified that she and Husband had

reached a settlement agreement. 

On October 7, 1997, Wife filed a “Motion to Set Aside Previously

Announced Agreement” in which she alleged that Husband had coerced her into

agreeing to the settlement of September 5, 1997.
2

On October 27, 1997, the trial court entered a Final Decree of divorce

which adopted and incorporated the terms of the marital dissolution agreement.

On appeal, Wife asks this Court to set aside the final decree and alleges

that Husband, on the evening of September 4, 1997, coerced her to appear in

court the following morning and agree to the terms of the divorce. 

As stated, at the time of the hearing, the trial judge placed both parties

under oath and each testified that the marital dissolution agreement was their

agreement. Wife and her counsel had ample opportunity at that time to retract

her agreement and complain that it had been obtained through duress. She

testified otherwise under oath, and will not be heard now to refute her own

testimony. See, Meadows v. Meadows, slip op., No. 1102 (Tenn. App. May 13,

1987).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

_______________________________

William H. Inman, Senior Judge

CONCUR:

_______________________________

Herschel P. Franks, Judge

_______________________________

Don T. McMurray, Judge
Case 1:07-cv-03341-CM-RLE Document 24 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. FOSTER

No. 209 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 145.

Petition by Attorney General for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 23 August 1977.
##### 



NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
UNDER THE
PHI, INC.
1995 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
 THIS AGREEMENT
 WHEREAS
  1.
 Grant of Option
   2.
 Vesting of Option
    1




---



##### 



(Budgeted Operating Income), the Option shall vest with respect to ___of the
shares covered thereby.
       3.
 Time of Exercise
    2




---



##### 



4.
 Conditions for Exercise of Option
  5.
 Additional Conditions
  6.
 No Contract of Employment Intended
  7.
 Taxes
  3




---



##### 



8.
 Binding Effect
  9.
 Inconsistent Provisions
  10.
 Adjustments to Options
  11.
 Termination of Option
    4