alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (“Globe”), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Globe on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Globe. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Globe and will be retained by Globe and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Date: November 11, 2010
By:
/s/ Jeff BradleyJeff BradleyChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date: November 11, 2010
By:
/s/ Malcolm AppelbaumMalcolm AppelbaumChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Curtis Ray Smith, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-18-08058-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) from the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 21) recommending that the Petition in this case be denied and 

dismissed with prejudice. No objections to the R&R have been filed and the time to object 

has expired. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct “any review 

at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it 

clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); 

see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

21) is ACCEPTED; thus, 

$ Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with 
- 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 

prejudice, 

$ in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of appealability is 

denied (see Doc. 21 at 25-26), and 

$ the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice. 

 Dated this 28th day of May, 2019.
Exhibit T 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-18 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 6
2771933.v1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

__________________________________________

)

JANE DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2, and )

JANE DOE NO. 3, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. 17-cv-11069-LTS

)

BACKPAGE.COM, LLC, CARL FERRER, )

MICHAEL LACEY, and JAMES LARKIN, )

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

ASSENTED-TO MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5.3 of the United States District Court for the District of

Massachusetts, Defendants Backpage.com, LLC, Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey, and James Larkin

hereby move that James C. Grant, Robert Corn-Revere, and Ronald London of the law firm

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP be admitted pro hac vice in the above-captioned matter. Robert A.

Bertsche and Jeffrey J. Pyle of Prince Lobel Tye LLP in Boston will remain as counsel to

defendants.

In support of this motion, defendants state that Attorneys Grant, Corn-Revere and

London have particularized knowledge of the facts and legal issues in this case. In further

support of this motion, attached hereto as Exhibits A, B and C are certificates establishing the

qualifications of Mr. Grant, Mr. Corn-Revere, and Mr. London, respectively, to practice in this

Court.

Plaintiffs have assented to the relief requested in this motion.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-18 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 6 Case 1:17-cv-11069-LTS Document 29 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 2
2

2771933.v1

WHEREFORE, Defendants Backpage.com, LLC, Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey, and James

Larkin respectfully request that this motion for admission pro hac vice be allowed.

Respectfully submitted,

BACKPAGE.COM, LLC, CARL FERRER,

MICHAEL LACEY and JAMES LARKIN,

By their attorneys,

/s/ Jeffrey J. Pyle

Robert A. Bertsche (BBO #554333)

Jeffrey J. Pyle (BBO #647438)

PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP

One International Place, Suite 3700

Boston, MA 02110

(617) 456-8143 (tel.); (617) 456-8100 (fax)

rbertsche@PrinceLobel.com

jpyle@PrinceLobel.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 22, 2017, the within document filed through the CM/ECF

system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of

Electronic Filing and by first-class mail to any non-registered participants.

/s/ Jeffrey J. Pyle

Jeffrey J. Pyle

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-18 Filed 04/25/18 Page 3 of 6 Case 1:17-cv-11069-LTS Document 29 Filed 08/22/17 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-18 Filed 04/25/18 Page 4 of 6 Case 1:17-cv-11069-LTS Document 29-1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-18 Filed 04/25/18 Page 5 of 6 Case 1:17-cv-11069-LTS Document 29-2 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 118-18 Filed 04/25/18 Page 6 of 6 Case 1:17-cv-11069-LTS Document 29-3 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM The Board of Directors
AFC Enterprises, Inc.: We consent
to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (Nos. 333-56444, 333-81404, 333-90706, and 333-98867) on
Form S-8 of AFC Enterprises, Inc. (Company) of our report dated March 25,
2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of AFC
Enterprises, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 26, 2004 and
December 28, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in shareholders equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 26,
2004, and our report dated April 25, 2005 with respect to
managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting as of December 26, 2004 and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 26, 2004 which reports appear in the December 26, 2004 annual
report on Form 10-K/A of AFC Enterprises, Inc. Our report dated March 25, 2005 contains an explanatory
paragraph that states that Effective December 31, 2001, the
Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets and Effective December 29, 2003 the Company adopted
the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation
No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities. Our
report dated April 25, 2005, on managements assessment of
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 26, 2004, expresses our opinion that the Company did
not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as
of December 26, 2004 because of the effects of material
weaknesses on the achievement of the objectives of the control
criteria and contains explanatory paragraphs that state that
(i) the Companys procedures associated with accounting for
accounts payable and accrued liabilities were not sufficient to
ensure that vendor invoices received subsequent to period end were
reflected in the proper accounting period in the Companys
reported financial information, and the Companys
procedures did not provide for timely communication between
operational departments and the accounting department and timely
processing of restaurant operational and capital invoices into the
accounts payable system, and (ii) the Companys procedures
did not provide for effective oversight and review of the
Companys income tax accounting estimates. /s/  KPMG LLP Atlanta, Georgia
April 25, 2005
#### Daniel NAVARRO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 1374-93.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 15, 1994.

Petition for Discretionary Review Denied Jan. 25, 1995.

Art Keinarth, Smithville, for appellant.

Charles D. Penick, Dist. Atty., and John M. Hawkins, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bastrop, and Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

BAIRD, Judge.

A jury convicted appellant of murder, pursuant to Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(a)(1), and assessed punishment at confinement for ninety-nine years. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial judge did not- err in refusing appellant’s request to limit the jury charge’s definitions of knowing and intentional to the result of appellant’s conduct. And, even if the refusal constituted error, the error was harmless under *Almanza v. State,*686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Cr.App.1985) (Opinion on rehearing.) *Navam v. State,*863 S.W.2d 191, 195-197 (Tex.App.—Austin 1993). Appellant now seeks review of that decision.

In *Cook v. State,*884 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Cr. App.1994), we addressed the issue of when the culpable mental states should be limited by the type of offense charged. In *Cook*we held:

> Intentional murder under § 19.02(a)(1) is a “result of conduct” offense, therefore, the trial judge erred in not limiting the culpable mental states to the result of appellant’s conduct. *Alvarado [v. State],*704 S.W.2d 36 (Tex.Cr.App.1985).... It is error for a trial to not limit the definitions of the culpable mental states as they relate to the conduct elements involved in the particular offense.

*Cook,*884 S.W.2d at 491. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in holding the trial judge did not err in refusing to limit the definitions of the culpable mental states. However, in *Cook*we noted finding error in the jury charge begins, rather than ends, the appellate court’s inquiry and we remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for a harm *649analysis under *Almanza, supra.*As previously noted, the Court of Appeals properly conducted such a harm analysis in the instant ease. For this reason, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused.
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-2 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-2 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-2 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-2 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7678

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DUSHAWN LEVERT GARDNER, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Shawn, a/k/a 

Michael Archer, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-5) 

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: April 2, 2009 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dushawn Levert Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Dushawn Levert Gardner seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) 

(2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gardner has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 89 Filed 01/23/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 89 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 89 Filed 01/23/20 Page 3 of 3
#### Finis WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 379-92, 380-92 and 381-92.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Feb. 3, 1993.

Bruno A. Shimek, Bryan, for appellant.

Bill Turner, Dist. Atty. and Margaret Lalk, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bryan, Robert Hut-tash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CAMPBELL, Judge.

In a single trial, a jury found appellant guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of robbery. See Tex.Penal Code §§ 15.01, 29.02 and 29.03. The jury assessed 20 year penitentiary sentences and fines of $5,000.00 for each of the aggravated robberies and a 10 year penitentiary sentence for the attempted aggravated robbery with a fine of $3,500.00. The court of appeals consolidated appellant’s causes for consideration on appeal *909and affirmed appellant’s convictions m a single opinion. *Wilson v. State,*823 S.W.2d 777 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992). We granted appellant’s petitions for discretionary review, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 200(c)(5), to decide whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court committed no error in allowing the jurors to submit written questions to the trial court. The court of appeals delivered its opinion before this Court issued its opinion in *Morrison v. State,*845 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). Therefore, we VACATE the judgment of the court of appeals, and REMAND this cause to the Waco Court of Appeals for reconsideration of the issue in light of *Morrison.*
H. Res. 726 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 10, 2009. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 965) 

to amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the continuing authorization of the Chesapeake Bay 

Gateways and Watertrails Network. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 

bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 

ordered on the bill, and any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources; (2) 

the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 

report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Bishop of Utah or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 

point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
2 

•HRES 726 EH 

rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 

debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 

the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Summit Business Capital Corp.
                       545 North Tryon Street, Suite 1600
                         Charlotte, North Carolina 28202


                                November 30, 2000



NDC Automation, Inc.
3101 Latrobe Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina  28211-4849

         Re:  Summit Business Capital Corp. $450,000.00 Loan to NDC Automation,
              Inc. (the "Loan")

Gentlemen:

This letter shall constitute notice to you that Summit Business Capital Corp.
(the "Lender") will not be renewing the Loan that will terminate on January 31,
2001 (the "Termination Date"). The Lender will expect payment in full of the
Loan on the Termination Date.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   SUMMIT BUSINESS CAPITAL CORP.


                                   By /s/ Keith D. Scheid
                                     ------------------------------------------

                                   Title Assistant Vice-President
                                        ---------------------------------------

                                   Acknowledged By:

                                   NDC AUTOMATION, INC.


                                   By /s/ Claude Imbleau
                                     ------------------------------------------

                                   Title Chief Operating Officer
                                        ---------------------------------------
First Amendment to Beckman Coulter, Inc. Benefit Equity Trust Agreement



 Exhibit 10.18 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 BECKMAN COULTER, INC. 
 BENEFIT EQUITY TRUST AGREEMENT 
 This FIRST AMENDMENT TO BECKMAN COULTER, INC. BENEFIT EQUITY TRUST AGREEMENT is entered into as of February 23, 2009 (“Amendment”), by and
between Beckman Coulter, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a national banking association organized under the law of the United States of America (the “Trustee”), and shall serve to amend
the Beckman Coulter, Inc. Benefit Equity Trust Agreement entered into as of October 5, 2004 between the Company and Trustee (the “Agreement”). 
 For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. Schedule A of the Agreement is deleted and replaced with Schedule A attached hereto. 
 2. Except as specifically amended hereby,
all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. All references to the Agreement in any other document or instrument shall be deemed to mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. Capitalized terms used without
definition in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
 3. This Amendment may be executed in any number of
counterparts and by separate parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which when executed shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 4. This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the obligations, rights, and remedies of the parties
under this Amendment shall be determined in accordance with such laws. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First
Amendment to Beckman Coulter, Inc. Benefit Equity Trust Agreement to be duly executed by their authorized officers as of the date first set forth above. 
  

									
	BECKMAN COULTER, INC.	 		 	WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Roger Plotkin
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Chris Gold

	Name:	 	Roger Plotkin	 		 	Name:	 	Chris Gold
	Title:	 	Vice President and Treasurer	 		 	Title:	 	Vice President








 SCHEDULE A 
 BECKMAN COULTER, INC. 
 BENEFIT EQUITY FUND 
 WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A. TRUSTEE 
 LIST OF PLANS 
 Beckman Coulter, Inc.
Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors 
 Beckman Coulter, Inc. 1998 Incentive Compensation Plan 
 Beckman Coulter, Inc. 2004 Long-Term Performance Plan 
 Beckman Coulter 2007
Long-Term Performance Plan 
 Beckman Coulter, Inc. Employees’ Stock Purchase Plan (U.S. and Canada) 
 Beckman Coulter, Inc. Savings Plan 
 Beckman Coulter, Inc. Option Gain
Deferral Program 
  

 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2726
ROBERT F. ZURLA, legally deaf person, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERNEST BEATTY, individually and as an officer with the Horry County Police Depa rtment; AL FANSHAW; JOHN MENTION; CHERYLL M. WATSON, caseworker with the Horry County Department of Social Services, Defendants - Appellees, and
HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; CITY OF CONWAY, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-1374-4-21JI) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Robert F. Zurla, Appellant Pro Se. James Wofford Peterson, Jr., CLARK & JOHNSON, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order de nying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Zurla v. B eatty , No. CA-93-1374-4-21JI (D.S.C. Aug. 23, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
ORDER

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 24-0354

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

KIRSTEN ANN MARTIN

 Petitioner/Appellee,

 and 

BRIAN ARTHUR MARTIN,

 Respondent/Appellant.

ORDER

PURSUANT to the Parties’ Stipulation to Hold Time Requirements in Abeyance Pending 

Completion of Mandatory Appellate Alternative Dispute Resolution pursuant to M.R.App.P. Rule 

7(3)(b) filed with this Court on July 1, 2024, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the briefing schedule that began to run on July 10, 2024, 

will be held in abeyance allowing the parties to complete alternative dispute resolution and pending 

the filing of the mediator’s report.

ELECTRONICALLY DATED AND SIGNED BELOW.

07/12/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0354
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, David L. Vicevich, hereby certify that I have served true and accurate copies of the foregoing 

Other - Other to the following on 07-12-2024:

Brad Lee Belke (Attorney)

po box 4079

Butte MT 59702

Representing: Kirsten Ann Martin

Service Method: eService

 Electronically Signed By: David L. Vicevich

Dated: 07-12-2024

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 12 2024