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

**EXHIBIT 4.21ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS**

San Antonios Resources Inc. hereby assigns its pre-contractual rights under itsletter of intent with Global Medical Sciences Inc. regarding the uro-stenttechnology to its wholly-owned subsidiary San Antonios Resources (USA) Inc.,said assignment being made for consideration of one dollar ($1.00). AccordinglySan Antonios Resources (USA) Inc. shall be considered to be the directcontracting party with Global Medical Sciences Inc. in respect of the intendedlicence agreement and thus acting as principal in respect of it without furtherobligation or rights of San Antonios Resources Inc.

SIGNED in Vancouver this 23rd day of September, 2002 prior to the closing of thelicence agreement with Global Medical Sciences Ltd./s/ Antonios Kripotos Antonios KripotosPresident**WITNESS**/s/ Lindsay Semple Lindsay Semple
#### SHEET METAL, INC. v. DISTRIBUTORS

No. 136 P.C.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 391.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1979.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                             725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,327
<ALLOWANCES>                                       157
<INVENTORY>                                     16,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,671
<PP&E>                                          12,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,242)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,291
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,813
<SALES>                                         70,003
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,003
<CGS>                                           55,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,497
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,482
<INCOME-TAX>                                       916
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,566
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,566
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Felipe Guzman Garcia v. Silvia Perales Diaz a/k/a Silvia Perales

Appellate case number: 01-19-00560-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-39265

Trial court: 312th District Court of Harris County

This Court abated the appeal and directed the trial court to hold a hearing on appeIlant’s 

statement of inability to afford court costs. A supplemental clerk’s record and reporter’s record 

were filed on May 7, 2020. The reporter’s record contained an oral ruling denying appellant’s 

statement of inability, but the supplemental clerk’s record contains no written order. Absent a 

written order, the Court must conclude that appellant is unable to afford court costs on appeal. See 

TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a).

Accordingly, the Court requests clarification of whether the trial court has signed a written 

order concerning appellant’s statement of inability. If the trial court has signed a written order, a

supplemental clerk’s record containing that order should be filed within 10 day of the date of this 

order. If no order has been signed, the district clerk shall notify this Court of that fact within 10 

days of the date of this order. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___Justice Peter Kelly_____________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___May 25, 2021____
---

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Platinum Group Metals
Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended August 31, 2013, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Frank R. Hallam, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.



| | /s/FRANK R. HALLAM                  
| | ------------------------------------
| | Frank R. Hallam                     
| | Chief Financial Officer and Director
| | November 26, 2013                   

---
Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 1 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 2 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 3 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 4 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 5 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 6 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 7 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 8 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 9 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 10 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 11 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 12 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 13 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 14 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 15 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 16 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 17 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 18 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 19 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 20 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 21 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 22 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 23 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 24 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 25 of 26Case 1:07-cv-03400-RWS Document 5 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 26 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 4      Filed 05/09/2007     Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 29, 2019

Decided August 30, 2019

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 19-1002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL E. GRIESINGER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Illinois. 

No. 3:18-CR-30094-DRH-1

David R. Herndon,

Judge.

O R D E R

Michael Griesinger, a federal inmate, pleaded guilty to assaulting another inmate

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) and was sentenced within the relevant applicable 

guidelines range to 46 months’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to the remainder of 

the sentence he was serving. Griesinger now appeals his sentence, but his appointed 

counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw. See Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Griesinger did not respond to counsel’s motion. 

See CIR. R. 51(b). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the case and addresses potential 

issues that we might expect an appeal of this kind to involve, so we limit our review to 

the subjects that he discusses. See United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 552–53 (7th Cir. 

1996).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 19-1002 Page 2

Counsel informs us that he consulted with Griesinger and that Griesinger does 

not wish to challenge or withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, counsel properly avoids 

discussing the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of the plea colloquy. 

See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012). 

Counsel does consider whether Griesinger could challenge his sentence but 

correctly concludes that such a challenge would be frivolous. Counsel explains that the 

district judge accurately calculated an offense level of 16 and a criminal history category 

of VI, yielding a guidelines range of 46 to 57 months. Further, we are entitled to treat 

Griesinger’s within-guidelines sentence as presumptively reasonable. See United States 

v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Counsel does not identify any reason to 

challenge that presumption here, and we discern none. The judge properly addressed 

all Griesinger’s principal arguments and the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by 

discussing Griesinger’s personal history and characteristics, including his “rough 

upbringing” and “extraordinary disadvantages” as a child, as well as the need for 

deterrence in a prison setting, where an assault could have “resulted in something 

much larger.” Lastly, counsel notes that challenging the consecutive nature of 

Griesinger’s sentence would be pointless, given the Sentencing Commission’s 

instruction that a sentence for an offense committed during imprisonment should “run 

consecutively to the undischarged term of imprisonment.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a).

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
#### MOORE v. GAS CO.

No. 54 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 333.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 March 1976.
#### STATE v. HATCH

No. 57 PC.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 148

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 May 1974.
#### BROWN v. MOORE

No. 43 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 445.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 24 September 1974.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 2106

JAMES TOLLE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GOVERNOR RALPH NORTHAM; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 00363

- LMB

- MSN )

Submitted : January 11, 2022 Decided: January 20, 2022

Before THACKER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed as modified and affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James Tolle , Appellant Pro Se. Calvin Cameron Brown, Assistant Attorney General , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Ri chmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Tolle appeals from the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing his civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s determinations that Tolle’s complaint was moot and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint as a result and its denial of the Rule 59(e) motion. The dismissal of Tolle’s complaint, however, should have been without prejudice. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC , 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). We therefore modify the district court’s dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal of Tolle’s complaint is without prejudice, affirm the dismissal as modified, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106, and affirm the district
court’s order denying Tolle’s Rule 59(e) motion. Tolle v. Northam , No. 1:20

- cv - 00363

- LMB

- MSN (E.D. Va. July 29 & Sept. 16, 2021).
We deny Tolle’s motion requesting oral arguments and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequ ately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ; AFFIRMED
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 PrimeEnergy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|/s/ Beverly A. Cummings                    
|Beverly A. Cummings Chief
Financial Officer
|August 16, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6840

WALTER DOUGLAS JENKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID ZOOK, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00761-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: November 19, 2018 Decided: November 30, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Douglas Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Douglas Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When 

the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jenkins has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Jenkins’ motion for appointment of counsel, and 

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000057497
<NAME> THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-06-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-04-1997
<CASH>                                             382
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,113
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,195
<PP&E>                                         119,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,934
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 169,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,003
<BONDS>                                         48,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,340
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   169,489
<SALES>                                         70,492
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,492
<CGS>                                           62,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,647)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,647)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,647)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.42)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, William A. Shumaker, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining 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 disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 14, 2005 

 

/s/ William A. Shumaker
William A. ShumakerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### ANDERSON v. MOORE

No. 339 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 350.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 December 1981. Motion of defendants to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 1 December 1981.
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 3 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 4 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 5 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 6 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 7 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 8 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 9 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 10 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 11 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 12 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 13 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 14 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 15 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 16 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 17 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 18 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 19 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 20 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 21 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 22 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 23 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 24 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 25 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 26 of 27
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-47 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 27 of 27
#### INSURANCE CO. v. DAVIS

No. 17 PC.

Case below: 7 N.C. App. 152.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 March 1970.