alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7472

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SCOTT ALLEN KING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR98-127-ALL, CA-01-1884-DKC) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Allen King, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Scott Allen King seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. King , Nos. CR-98-127-ALL; CA-01-1884-DKC (D. Md. filed July 3, 2001; entered July 5, 2001).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00745

- CV

Keeann DEVORA , Craig Owen, and Keller Williams Realty,

Appellants

v.

Tavaris J. SLAUGHTER , Individually, and TJ Slaughter Enterprises, LLC,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 13013

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding 1

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the parties’ motion to dismiss the

appeal is GRANTED, the trial court’s judgment is SET ASIDE, and we REMAND this matter to

the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.

We order costs of appeal taxed against the party who in curred them.

SIGNED March 25, 2015.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

1 The Honorable Renee Yanta is the presiding judge of the 150th District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The judgment

in this case was signed by the Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, former presiding judge of the 150th District Court, Bexar

County, Texas.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

September 13, 2005


Mr. Robert Edwards
6 Edgewood Drive
Cherry Hill, N.J.   08003


Dear Mr. Edwards;

We are delighted to extend our offer of employment to you as CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER. This position joins our Executive Management Team, at an annual base
salary of $ 130,000 to be paid semi-monthly. In this position you will report
directly to Mr. Stephen King, Chief Executive Officer of Synova Healthcare
Group, Inc., and will be expected to perform the duties consistent with such a
position.

We have also considered the opportunity for long term incentives to support your
career decision. You will be granted a stock option grant of 300,000 shares of
Synova common stock (issued at FMV). This option grant will be exercisable, for
active employees only, in equal increments of 75,000 shares annually following
each of your first four years of employment.

In addition, you will receive three weeks (15 days) vacation in accordance with
Company policy, and be eligible for participation in the Synova Medical and
Dental plans as of your first day of employment on the same cost-sharing basis
as other Synova employees. You are immediately eligible to participate in our
Simple IRA savings plan. Your position within our company will also entitle you
to participate, in the same manner as other employees, in all savings, stock
purchase, group insurance, disability (insurance), equity incentive and other
standard employee benefit plans maintained or adopted by Synova in the future.
Therefore, you would also qualify for participation in the (i) Management
Incentive Bonus Program, (ii) Employee Stock Option Incentive Program, and (iii)
Synova Profit Sharing Program. Please be reminded that these three incentive
programs are in the process of being developed and will be subject to approval
by the Board of Directors.

Rob, we believe that you would be an excellent addition to the Synova team and
we look forward to your favorable response. Your employment with Synova will be
on an at-will basis and you will be required to execute a Nondisclosure and
Non-solicitation Agreement upon commencement of employment. Please sign your
acceptance of the Offer of Employment and return it to me no later than
Thursday, September 15, 2005. We are projecting September 16, 2005 as the start
date for your employment.

Please report for your first day of work on Friday, September 16, 2005 to our
offices at 1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6010, Media, PA, 19063 at 9:00 AM. We
will be conducting an orientation for new employees during your first week.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
directly at (610) 565-7080, ext. 101.

Sincerely,




Mr. David J. Harrison
Chief Operating Officer


                        AGREED & ACCEPTED BY: _________________ DATE: ________
                                              Mr. Robert Edwards
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.08


                                SERVICESOFT, INC.

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2

                                       TO

                        1999 STOCK OPTION AND GRANT PLAN

                                 MARCH 24, 2000

                              W I T N E S S E T H:



WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and the Stockholders of Servicesoft, Inc. (the
"Company") approved and adopted the 1999 Stock Option and Grant Plan (the
"Plan") of the Company, dated November 1, 1999, and amended same pursuant to
Amendment No. 1 of the 1999 Stock Option and Grant Plan, dated February 10,
2000;

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and the Stockholders of the Company have
determined that it is in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan in
order to provide for an increase in the number of shares authorized for issuance
under the Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

1. Amendment to Section 3. Section 3(a) of the Plan shall be amended to add the
underscored language and delete the stricken language, as set forth below:

        (a) Stock Issuable. The maximum number of shares of Stock reserved and
        available for issuance under the Plan shall initially be 2,376,498
        shares of Stock; provided that, on the consummation of the Company's
        initial public offering of its Common Stock (the "Initial Public
        Offering") and on each January 1 during the term of the Plan, commencing
        on January 1, 2001, unless the Board determines otherwise, the maximum
        number of shares of Stock for which Awards may be granted under the Plan
        shall be automatically increased (i) to the number which sets maintains
        the number of shares reserved for issuance under the Plan and any other
        stock and/or option plan of the Company at twenty percent (20%) of the
        issued and outstanding capital stock of the Company calculated on an
        as-converted, fully-diluted basis (the "Diluted Capital Stock") (after
        such increase) or (ii) by a number of shares of Stock equal to four
        percent (4%) of the Diluted Capital Stock, whichever is greater (the
        "New Reserve"); provided further that, in no event shall the number of
        shares reserved for issuance under the Plan exceed 10,000,000.

2. Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.

DATE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: March 24, 2000
#### In the Interest of C.D. M.J.D., Appellant, v. Russell SHELDEN, Juvenile Officer, Respondent.

Nos. 17993, 18007.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Feb. 5, 1993.

M.J.D., pro se.

No appearance for respondent.

PREWITT, Judge.

M.J.D. appeals from two orders entered by the Juvenile Court of Pulaski County when C.D., her daughter, was under seventeen years of age. C.D. is now eighteen years of age. The court terminated its jurisdiction over C.D. on January 31, 1992. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of C.D. The motion alleges the appeal is moot as the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court has terminated its jurisdiction over C.D.

“A case is moot if an event occurs which makes a decision on appeal unnecessary or which makes it impossible for the appellate court to grant effectual relief.” *K.E.B. v.*782 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Mo.App.1989). See also *In the Interest of R.L.P.,*536 S.W.2d 41, 43-44 (Mo.App.1976) (juvenile committed to state training school, discharged before the appeal).

Nevertheless, an appellate court has discretion to decide an issue which is moot as to the parties where the case presents an unsettled legal issue of public interest and importance. *Magruder v. Petre,*690 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Mo.App.1985). This exception “is made where an issue is presented of a recurring nature, is of general public interest and importance, and will evade appellate review unless the court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction”. *State ex rel. Missouri Pub. Serv. Co. v. Fraas,*627 S.W.2d 882, 885 (Mo.App.1981).

The decision of whether to exercise this discretionary exception depends on if there is a legal principle not previously ruled on to which a judicial declaration should be made for future guidance. *Id.*

Because she and her mother could not get along the daughter was placed in a foster home. There was no evidence of neglect or improper care of the daughter, as commonly understood. This court is powerless to change what has previously occurred regarding the daughter. There is no unsettled issue of public interest or importance present.

*785The motion to dismiss is sustained. The appeals are dismissed.

MONTGOMERY, P.J., and FLANIGAN, J., concur.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 597 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the Committee 

on Rules to conduct its meetings and hearings in the Hall of the House, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2009 

Mr. KING of Iowa submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require the Committee on Rules to conduct its meetings 

and hearings in the Hall of the House, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Resolved, That rule IV of the Rules of the House of 

2 Representatives is amended by adding at the end the fol3 lowing new clause: 

4 ‘‘8. Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, 

5 the Committee on Rules shall conduct all of its meetings 

6 and hearings in the Hall of the House. All such meetings 

7 and hearings shall be open to the public and to coverage 

8 by audio and visual means unless disclosure of matters 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 597 IH 

1 to be considered would endanger national security, would 

2 compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or oth3 erwise would violate a law or rule of the House.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the
three and six months ended March 31, 2014 (the Report) of PennantPark Investment Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive
Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Arthur H. Penn
|Arthur H. Penn    
|May 7, 2014
**CERTIFICATION
      OF**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**






In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Aspire
      Japan, Inc., for the Quarter ending July 31, 2007 I, Ken Osako, Chief Financial
      Officer of Aspire Japan, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
      best of my knowledge and belief, that:






1.
      Such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
      ended July 31, 2007, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Aspire Japan, Inc.






Date:
        September 19, 2007
  */s/
        Ken Osako*
 Ken
        Osako
 Chief
        Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6981
BERNARD BAGLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAR OLINA; DONALD J. ZELENKA; PARKER EVATT; WILLIAM DAVIS; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2487-3-8AJ) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Travis Medlock, Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bagley v. South Carolina , No. CA-94-2487-3-8AJ (D.S.C. May 26, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of 511410, Inc., for the Quarter Ending July 31, 2005, I, Scott Raleigh, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of 511410, Inc. hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

1.      SuchQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2005,fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.      Theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the periodended July 31, 2005, fairly represents in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of 511410, Inc. 

 
| Dated: September 12, 2005 |
|---------------------------|

 

**511410, INC.**

 
| By: | */s/  Scott Raleigh*Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0218

_________________

LLOYD SCOTT MAIER,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Respondent and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Lloyd Scott Maier, to all counsel of 

record, and to the Honorable Gregory R. Todd, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 27 2021

10/27/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0218
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Douglas Haig, 

Defendant. 

No. 18-00105MJ 

ORDER 

 Defendant has filed an unopposed Motion to Continue the April 16, 2018 Status 

Hearing, and asks the Court to continue the status hearing for 30 days. (Doc. 18.) 

Defendant states that he requires additional time to prepare for the status hearing because 

the parties are awaiting the results of additional forensic examinations and reports, which 

have great significance to the future hearings scheduled in the case and to a potential preindictment resolution. (Id.) Defendant also states that he expects excludable delay under 

18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(B)(i) may result from the motion and any order 

based on the motion. (Id.) 

 Based on Defendant’s representations, the Court finds that the ends of justice 

served by allowing Defendant additional time to obtain important forensic reports, and 

review those reports in preparation for future hearings, outweigh the best interest of the 

public and Defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The Court finds 

that denying the motion for a continuance would deny counsel for Defendant the 

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue the April 16, 

2018 Status Hearing (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. The status hearing currently set for April 

16, 2018 is continued to May 21, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Eileen S. 

Willett, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, 

Arizona 85003, Courtroom 606. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that excludable delay under Title 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)______ will commence on _______for a total of ______days. 

 Dated this 12th day of April, 2018.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1324]



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


SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Notice of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board 
Membership

    Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 4314(c)(4) of the Civil Service Reform 
Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454, requires that the appointment of 
Performance Review Board members be published in the Federal Register.
    The following persons will serve on the Performance Review Board 
which oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals of Senior 
Executive Service members of the Social Security Administration:

Kathleen M. Adams
Horace J. Dickerson, Jr.
Gilbert C. Fisher
Randolph W. Gaines
Armando A. Gonzalez
Eve Hilgenberg
David Jenkins
Antonia Lenane
Gordon Sherman
Barbara Sledge
Dale W. Sopper

    Dated: January 11, 1996.
Ruth A. Pierce,
Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources.
[FR Doc. 96-1324 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P
#### In re J.N.H., G.W.H., and T.L.H., Minors, Plaintiff, Juvenile Officer, Respondent, W.G.H. and A.H., Natural Parents, Appellants.

No. WD 49886.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 15, 1995.

Mary Vegh Hower, St. Joseph, for appellants.

James A. Nadolski, St. Joseph, for respondent.

David R. Schmitt, Guardian ad Litem.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and SMART and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from an order terminating appellants’ parental rights pursuant to section 211.447.2(3), RSMo 1993. There was substantial credible evidence to support the statutory grounds for termination as stated in section 211.447.2(3), and to establish that termination was in the best interests of the children.

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

I, John A. Roberts, the Chief Financial Officer of InfoLogix, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

·                  the Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

·                  the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  August 14, 2008 |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                              |   |
|                              |   |
| /s/ John A. Roberts               |   |
| John A. Roberts                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer           |   |

 

1

----
H. Res. 51 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 13, 2009. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be and are 

hereby elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

(1) COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION.—Ms. 

Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Gonzalez, 

Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

(2) COMMITTEE ON RULES.—Mr. Perlmutter, Ms. 

Pingree of Maine, Mr. Polis of Colorado. 

SEC. 2. Paragraph (5) of House Resolution 24, One 

Hundred Eleventh Congress, agreed to January 7, 2009, is 

amended by striking ‘‘Mr. Bishop of Utah,’’ and inserting 

‘‘Mr. Bishop of New York,’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Scott Daniel Warren,

Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 18-00223-TUC-RCC(BPV)

ORDER

The Court having held a hearing on April 11, 2018, and having taken under

advisement Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars is denied.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2018.