alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 30, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. GENE FRANKLIN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-3358 (D. Kansas) (D.C. Nos. 2:09-CV-02439-JWL and 2:06-CR-20176-JWL-1)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

BeforeMURPHY , GORSUCH,and HOLMES , Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on Gene Franklin’s pro se request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”). Franklin seeks a COA so he can appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Because Franklin has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” id. § 2253(c)(2), this court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal. Following a jury trial, Franklin was convicted of two counts of aiding or assisting in the preparation or filing of false or fraudulent federal income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). Franklin did not appeal his convictions. Instead, he filed the instant § 2255 motion, raising thirteen general-2- grounds for relief. In a thorough order, the district court denied Franklin’s § 2255 motion. In so doing, the district court noted that the vast majority of Franklin’s claims were inherently incredible, conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, or “hackneyed tax protestor” refrains consistently rejected by the federal courts. See, e.g., United States v. Collins , 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990). The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to Franklin’s appeal from the denial of his § 2255 motion. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). To be entitled to a COA, Franklin must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the requisite showing, he must demonstrate “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Id. (quotations omitted). In evaluating whether Franklin has satisfied his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his claims. Id. at 338. Although Franklin need not demonstrate his appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Id. Having undertaken a review of Franklin’s appellate filings, the district court’s order, and the entire record before this court pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El , we conclude Franklin is not entitled to-3- a COA. The district court’s thorough and considered resolution of Franklin’s § 2255 motion is not reasonably subject to debate and the issues he seeks to raise on appeal are not adequate to deserve further proceedings. Accordingly, this
court DENIES Franklin’s request for a COA and DISMISSES this appeal. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 32.1


              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of KV Pharmaceutical Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that, to the best of their
knowledge:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: February 13, 2004             /s/ Marc S. Hermelin
      -----------------             -------------------------------------------
                                    Marc S. Hermelin
                                    Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Date: February 13, 2004             /s/ Gerald R. Mitchell
      -----------------             -------------------------------------------
                                    Gerald R. Mitchell
                                    Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
                                     Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to KV Pharmaceutical Company and will be retained by KV
Pharmaceutical Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.




                                     27
Exhibit
10.1 


AMENDMENT
TO PUT OPTION AGREEMENT


This
Amendment to Put Option Agreement (“Amendment”), dated effective as of April 7, 2020 (the “Effective
Date”), is made by and between Allied Esports Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and Lyle A. Berman (the “Investor”).


A.
The Company and Investor previously entered into that certain Put Option Agreement dated effective February 25, 2020 (the
“Agreement”). Capitalized terms have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.


B. On March 9, 2020,
the Company delivered to Investor a Notice of Option Exercise (the “Notice”) to exercise the Option.


C. The parties have
agreed to amend the terms of the Agreement to cause the Closing to occur no later than May 15, 2020.


Now,
Therefore, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby
agree as follows:


AMENDMENT


1.                 
Closing Date. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in the Agreement and Notice, the parties agree to
cause the Closing to occur no later than May 15, 2020, at which time Investor shall purchase all of the Option Shares available
for purchase.


2.                 
No Other Modification. Except as expressly set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
and shall not be modified by this Amendment. 


3.                 
Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will constitute an original,
but all of which, when taken together, will constitute the same agreement.


Signature Page Follows


 



    


     


    




In
Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above.





	 	COMPANY:
	 	 
	 	ALLIED ESPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Frank Ng
	 	Frank Ng, Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	 
	 	INVESTOR:
	 	 
	 	/s/ Lyle A. Berman
	 	Lyle A. Berman, Individually
EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
Aeroquip-Vickers, Inc.
(In thousands, except per share data)
                                               Three Months Ended
                                                    March 31
                                           --------------------------
                                               1997          1996   
                                            ----------    ----------
AVERAGE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK 
AND COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS 
OUTSTANDING (NOTE A)
Average shares outstanding                      27,974        28,755
Assumed conversion of the 6%
 convertible debentures                             --         1,905
Net effect of dilutive stock
 options based upon treasury stock
 method using average market price                 141            47
                                             ---------    ----------
Average shares of common stock 
 and common stock equivalents
 outstanding                                    28,115        30,707
                                            ==========    ==========

INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCK (NOTE A)
Net income                                  $    5,694    $   24,415
After-tax equivalent of interest expense
 on the 6% convertible debentures                   --           930
                                            ----------    ----------
Income attributable to common stock         $    5,694    $   25,345
                                            ==========    ========== 


Net Income per Share                        $      .20    $      .83
                                            ==========    ========== 



Note A - Net income per share for the 1996 first quarter was computed using
the average number of shares outstanding, including common stock equivalents. 
The assumed conversion of the Company's 6% convertible debentures was included
in average shares outstanding, increasing the average number of shares
outstanding by 1,904,762 shares and net income was increased for the after-tax
equivalent of interest expense on the 6% convertible debentures.  In the 1997
first quarter, the assumed conversion of the 6% convertible debentures was not
included in average shares outstanding because the effect of the inclusion
would have been anti-dilutive.


                                   -32-
|  | 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/                 William E. Luther                       William E. Luther                         Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer                           January 10,                      2007 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra M. Peay, Contact Representative, or Renee Hallman, Contact Representative, Federal Trade Commission, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room H-303, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3100.

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 07-5244  Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

GREENHORNE & O’MARA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cv23-SPM/AK

CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL

CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS, INC.,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Upon consideration, Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for an Extension of

Time to Answer the Complaint (doc. 6) is granted. Defendant shall have up to

and including March 25, 2010, to file and serve its response to the complaint.

SO ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1768 

To clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within the borders of 

a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to regulation 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or any other provision of 

law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate interstate 

commerce. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2019 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within 

the borders of a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to regulation under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 or any other provision of law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate 

interstate commerce. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Native Species Protec5 tion Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

S 1768 IS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF INTRASTATE SPECIES. 

2 (a) DEFINITION OF INTRASTATE SPECIES.—In this 

3 Act, the term ‘‘intrastate species’’ means any species of 

4 plant or fish or wildlife (as those terms are defined in sec5 tion 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

6 1532)) that is— 

7 (1) found entirely within the borders of a single 

8 State; and 

9 (2) not part of a national market for any com10 modity. 

11 (b) TREATMENT.—An intrastate species shall not 

12 be— 

13 (1) considered to be in interstate commerce; 

14 and 

15 (2) subject to regulation under— 

16 (A) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

17 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or 

18 (B) any other provision of law under which 

19 regulatory authority is based on the power of 

20 Congress to regulate interstate commerce as 

21 enumerated in article I, section 8, clause 3 of 

22 the Constitution of the United States. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VICKI WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv31-RH/WCS

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 4) and the objections (document 9). I have reviewed

de novo the issues raised by the objections. The plaintiff has not paid the filing fee

or filed a properly support motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. And

leave to proceed in forma pauperis would not be granted even if the plaintiff filed a

motion establishing her financial eligibility, because the complaint is so plainly

unfounded. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED without
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:10cv31-RH/WCS

prejudice.” The clerk must close the file. 

SO ORDERED on April 2, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
`Exhibit 32(a)

                                  CERTIFICATION

          Pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  the  undersigned  officer  of
Decorize,  Inc. (the  "Company"),  hereby  certifies  that the Company's  Annual
Report on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended June 30, 2002 (the  "Report")  fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



/s/ James K. Parsons
-------------------------------------
James K. Parsons
President and Chief Executive Officer
December 19, 2003`
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10.12



                          TOUCH 1 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                            Post Office Drawer 10751
                           Atmore, Alabama 36504-5741



                                PROMISSORY NOTE
                                ---------------

$290,276.00

         For value received the undersigned party, promises to pay, to the
order of James F. Corman, the principal sum of $290,276.00 together with
accrued interest at the rate equal to six percent (6%) per annum. Said
principal and interest shall be paid in sixty (60) equal monthly installments.

                                          TOUCH 1 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



                                          BY:   /s/ Trey Davis
                                             ----------------------------------
                                          Its:  Secretary
                                              ---------------------------------
                                          Date: September 10, 1999
                                               --------------------------------
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6686

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RYAN O’NEIL LITTLE, a/k/a LA, a/k/a Youngblood , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Max O. Cogburn, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:95

- cr - 00105

- MOC

- 1 )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON , DIAZ , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ryan O’Neil Little, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6686 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Ryan O’Neil Little appeals the district court’s order denying hi s motion for compassionate release . We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion

. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied , 142 S.Ct. 383 (2021)

. Ac cordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order

. We deny Little’s motion for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6686 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32.1




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 BSV V, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas A. Dyer, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





1.    The
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.




Dated:
      September 25, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Douglas
      A. DyerDouglas
      A. Dyer
                  President
      and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)
                  (Principal
      Financial /Accounting
Officer)
# C_2011247EN.01001001.xml

| 25.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/10

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2011/C 247/05

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was received, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will shortly expire.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2).

2

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Silicon carbide | People's Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/2006
  (OJ L 232, 25.8.2006, p. 1) | 26.8.2011 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Silicon carbide

People's Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/2006

(OJ L 232, 25.8.2006, p. 1)

26.8.2011

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2011, p. 8.

1

(2)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Export-Import Bank of the United States

# ACTION:

Notice of a Partially Open Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

# Time and Place:

Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.

# Open Agenda Item:

Ex-Im Bank Advisory Committee (15th Member) for 2007.

# Public Participation:

The meeting will be open to public participation for Item No. 1 only.

# Further Information:

For further information, contact: Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571 (Telephone 202-565-3957).

Howard A. Schweitzer, 

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 07-540 Filed 2-2-07; 1:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of Oilsands Quest Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended April 30, 2011, the undersigned Annie Lamoureux, Vice President and Controllerof the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:
  (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.
   July 8, 2011/s/ Annie LamoureuxAnnie Lamoureux, Vice President and Controller