alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6789** 

GREGORY C
. KRUG , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. VICTOR LORANTH, in his individual capacity , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 01829

- DCN )

Submitted : September 9 , 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Gregory C
. Krug, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory C
. K r ug seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Krug’s complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 ( 1971). We remand for consideration of whether reopening of the appeal period is merited. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,
p arties ar e accorded 6 0 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an a ppeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)( B ), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictiona l requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 6, 2015. Kr ug filed his notice of appeal on May 14, 2015. * K r ug’s notice of appeal is clearly untimely. However, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that th e date appearing on Krug’s notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988).3 time to file an appeal if: (1) the moving party did not receive notice of entry of judgment within 21 days after entry; (2) the motion is filed within 180 days of entry of judgment or within 14 days of re ceiving notice from the court, whichever is earlier; and (3) no party would be prejudiced. In his notice of appeal, K r ug stated that he did not receive notice of the district court’s order dismissing his action until the court mailed him a copy on May 6, 2015, in response to Krug’s April 30 letter of inquiry as to the status of his case. Accordingly, we remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to determine whether K r ug’s notice of appeal should be construed as a motion to reopen th e appeal period, and if so, whether reopening is merited. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00351

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF E.M., M INOR

C HILD §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 442nd District

Court

of Denton County (14

- 00945

- 393)

June 27, 2019

Opinion by Justice Bassel

JUDGMENT

This cou rt has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant M.M. ( Dad ) shall pay all of the costs of this

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement - Thomas E. Lippard



 Exhibit 10.15 

 
 [Tube City IMS Corporation Letterhead] 

May 10, 2010 

Thomas E. Lippard 
 Tube City IMS Corporation

 P.O. Box 2000 
 12 Monongahela Avenue

 Glassport, Pennsylvania 15045 
 Dear
Tom: 
 This letter amends your Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of January 25, 2007, by and among Metal
Services Acquisition Corp., Tube City IMS Corporation and you (the “Employment Agreement”). In order to correct an error in the Employment Agreement, the first sentence of Section 2C(f) is hereby replaced in its entirety
as follows: 
 “Effective in the year commencing January 1, 2015, Normal Retirement Benefits shall be increased to
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) annually; and early Retirement Benefits shall increase to Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) annually at age 55, plus Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) for each full year of attained between ages 55 and 65 at the date of
early retirement to a maximum of Forty Eight Thousand Dollars ($48,000) at age 64.” 
 This letter is to be interpreted
consistent with and governed by each of the provisions of Section 4 of the Employment Agreement. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	METAL SERVICES ACQUISITION CORPORATION
	
	 /s/ Daniel E. Rosati            

  

	Name: Daniel E. Rosati
	Title: CFO
	
	TUBE CITY IMS CORPORATION
	
	 /s/ Daniel E. Rosati            

  

	Name: Daniel E. Rosati
	Title: CFO


  

	
	Agreed and Accepted:
	
	 /s/ Thomas E. Lippard            

  

	 Thomas E. Lippard
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00082-CV

In re Dasan Nesmith

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Dasan Nesmith, an inmate in the Comal County Jail, filed a pro se 

original petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.1. Relator complains that he has been unlawfully confined pursuant to a 

defective indictment.

This Court does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases. 

See Tex. Const. art. V, § 6; Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(d) (limiting original habeas corpus 

jurisdiction of courts of appeals to situations where relator's liberty is restrained by virtue of 

order, process, or commitment issued by court or judge in civil case); see also Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. art. 11.05 (vesting “power to issue the writ of habeas corpus” in “[t]he Court of Criminal 

Appeals, the District Courts, the County Courts, or any Judge of said Courts”). As an 

intermediate appellate court, our habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters is appellate 

only. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(d); see also In re Wilkins, No. 03-20-00381-CV, 

2020 WL 5608486, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 17, 2020, orig. proceeding).
2

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus for want 

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana

Filed: March 1, 2022
Amendment to the Cash Balance Retirement Plan



 Exhibit 10.41.5 

AMENDMENT TO THE 

CASH BALANCE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF 

ASSOCIATED GROCERS, INC. 

Unified Grocers, Inc. (“Unified”), pursuant to its authority as successor sponsor of the Cash Balance Retirement Plan for
Employees of Associates Grocers, Inc. (the “Plan”), hereby amends the Plan, effective January 1, 2001, as set forth below. 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement to Transfer Plan Sponsorship, Associated Grocers, Inc. (“AG”) transferred sponsorship of the
Plan to Unified and Unified assumed sole sponsorship of the Plan, effective September 30, 2007. Effective September 30, 2007, Unified continued as the sole sponsor of the Plan within the meaning of Section 3(16)(B) of ERISA; and

 WHEREAS, immediately upon the transfer of sponsorship to Unified, Unified has sole authority to take actions under the Plan
that AG had immediately prior to the transfer of sponsorship, including the authority to amend or terminate the Plan in accordance with its terms; and 

WHEREAS, Unified merged the Plan with and into the Unified Grocers, Inc. Cash Balance Plan, effective December 31, 2008; and

 WHEREAS, Unified now desires to amend the Plan concerning the timing of the distribution of a Participant’s cash balance
benefit for periods prior to such merger. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, Unified does hereby amend Section 3.4 of the Plan to read as
follows: 
 3.4 Retirement Date 

The Retirement Date for a Participant shall be one of the dates specified in Sections 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3 above, on which benefits are to
commence. The Retirement Date for a Participant who Terminates prior to retirement with a vested Accrued Benefit shall be Normal Retirement Date, unless such Participant qualifies for and elects to receive benefits at an Early Retirement Date.
Despite the foregoing, effective as of January 1, 2001, with respect to the portion of a Participant’s Accrued Benefit derived from service on or after January 1, 2001, if any, the Retirement Date for a Participant who Terminates
prior to retirement with a vested Accrued Benefit shall be any date elected by such Participant to receive benefits after he or she Terminates. Such benefits may be paid in any of the forms provided under Section 5.1. 

Executed this 10th day of May, 2010. 
  


			
	 UNIFIED GROCERS, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/    ROBERT M. LING,
JR.        

	 Its:
	 	Executive Vice President & General Counsel
#### Chandra Veda KELLISON, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant.

No. 67944.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 24, 1995.

*193Ronald D. Pridgin, Jefferson City, for appellant.

R. Andrew Beeny, Clayton, for respondent.

WHITE, Judge.

Director of Revenue (“Director”) appeals the circuit court’s judgment, setting aside the suspension of the driver’s license of Chandra Veda Kellison (“licensee”). We remand.

On March 8, 1994, licensee was involved in an automobile accident. Licensee did not own the car she was driving. Director subsequently notified licensee her license would be suspended for sixty days effective July 1, 1994 for failure to maintain financial responsibility, as required by Missouri law.1 The Administrative Hearing Officer upheld the suspension. Licensee petitioned for judicial review by the circuit court. After a hearing, the court set aside the suspension. No recording was made of the proceeding. The court found licensee did not know the automobile was not in compliance with the financial requirements set forth in Chapter 303. This appeal followed.2

Director argues the ease should be remanded because of the failure to preserve a record of the proceeding as required by § 512.180 RSMo 1994. In the alternative, Director argues the court’s order should be reversed on the existing record. Director contends even if the automobile had been insured, licensee’s use of the vehicle without the owner’s permission would not be covered by insurance. Director also contends a person operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s permission would know such operation would not be covered under the owner’s insurance.

It is not clear from the record if during the circuit court proceeding either party presented evidence in addition to the administrative record. It is also not clear from the record if the administrative record constituted the sole basis for the circuit court’s judgment. *See Kinder v. Director of Revenue,*895 S.W.2d 627, 629 (Mo.App.E.D.1995). Therefore, we are unable to decide this appeal on the basis of Director’s argument regarding licensee’s alleged non-permissive use of the vehicle.

Director complied with Rule 81.12(c). Director requested a transcript of the circuit court proceeding. The Circuit Court Clerk informed Director there was no sound recording of the proceeding. The case is remanded so an adequate record may be produced. *Panhorst v. Director of Revenue,*894 S.W.2d 168, 169 (Mo. banc 1995); *Koehr v. Director of Revenue,*813 S.W.2d 363, 364 (Mo.App.1991).

REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL, J., concur.

1

. Section 303.025.1 RSMo 1994 provides, in part, "no person shall operate a motor vehicle owned by another with the knowledge that the owner has not maintained financial responsibility unless such person has financial responsibility which covers his operation of the other’s vehicle.”

2

. Licensee did not file a brief with this court.
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 BioForce Nanosciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory D. Brown, 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, to the best of 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/ Gregory D. Brown

Gregory D. Brown

Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2008







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q/ solely 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) and are not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 10.18

                    North Bay Bancorp 2005 Executive Bonuses

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Executive Officer          Title                                            2005 Bonus
-----------------          -----                                            ----------
<C>                        <C>                                              <C>
Terry L. Robinson          President and CEO North Bay Bancorp;             $55,000
                           CEO The Vintage Bank

Glen C. Terry              President, The Vintage Bank                      $45,000

John A. Nerland            President, Solano Bank, a Division of            $50,000
                           The Vintage Bank

Kathi Metro-Chinberg       Executive Vice President and Credit              $38,500
                           Administrator

Patrick E. Phelan          Executive Vice President and Chief               $ 5,000
                           Financial Officer

Virginia M. Robbins        Executive Vice President and Chief                   -0-
                           Operating Officer

Susan C. Fonseca           Senior Vice President, Human Resources           $23,000

Stephanie Rode             Senior Vice President and Compliance             $37,000
                           Risk Manager
</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 50304 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ALVIN LEON ROUNDTREE, also known as Alvin Roundtree, also known as Alvin L. Roundtree , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 554

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alvin Leon Roundtree, federal prisoner # 20242

- 380, pleaded guilty to assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon, and he was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. He appeals the district

co urt’s denial of his post

- judgment motions to compel the Government to specific performance.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 10, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-50304 Document: 00513303142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2015No. 15

- 50304

2 Roundtree argues that the Government violated the plea agreement by asking the district court to sentence him based on a cross

- reference to assault
with intent to commit murder and attempted murder, offenses to which he did not plead guilty, instead of the Guideline for aggravated assault, the offense to which he pleaded guilty pursuant to the plea agreement. Roundtree, however, has not cited, in the district court or this court, any recognized procedural vehicle supporting his motion s

. Because Roundtree has not filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking his conviction and sentence, the district court could not construe his motions as a § 2255 motion without informi ng Roundtree of its intent to recharacterize his motions as a § 2255 motion, warning Roundtree that such a recharacterization would restrict his ability to file a future § 2255 motion, and giv ing Roundtree the opportunity to withdraw or amend his
motions. See Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375, 382

- 83 (2003). Furthermore, Roundtree has not shown that he was prejudiced by the district court’s failure to construe his motion s as a § 2255 motion. The district court
could not construe the motion s as a Fede ral Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 motion because they were neither made by the Government nor made within seven days of sentencing. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 35; United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1994). Similarly, the district court could not construe the motion s as a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion because they were not based upon an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. See § 3582(c)(2); Early , 27 F.3d at 142. This appeal is “from the denial of [] meaningless, unauthorized
motion [s] .” Early , 27 F.3d at 142. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Case: 15-50304 Document: 00513303142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2015
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5524 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5524

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2023

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the start date of the pilot program on sharing with foreign 
                 branches, subsidiaries and affiliates.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Affiliates Sharing Pilot 
Program Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. FOREIGN AFFILIATES SHARING PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 5318(g)(8)(B)(iii) of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``3 years after the date of enactment of this 
paragraph'' and inserting ``3 years after the date on which the 
Secretary of the Treasury issues rules pursuant to subparagraph (A)''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 2023.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In  connection  with the  Annual  Report of  Galaxy  Minerals,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2004,  as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on or  about  the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Matthew J. Symonds, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated:  May 5, 2005                            /s/ Matthew J. Symonds
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         By:  Matthew J. Symonds
                                         Its: President


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Galaxy Minerals,  Inc. and will be retained by Galaxy Minerals, Inc.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT
32.1.





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I,
Anthony Escobar, Chief Executive Officer, and Anthony Coletti, Principal
Accounting Officer, of Trafalgar Resources, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby
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 our knowledge, based
upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2009
of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.





Dated:  May
19,
2009                                                                           By:  /s/ Anthony
Escobar


Anthony Escobar


Chief
Executive Officer





By:  /s/  Anthony
Coletti


Anthony Coletti, Principal Accounting
Officer





* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Trafalgar Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Trafalgar
Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.