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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3011

LAUNEIL SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RAYTHEON ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, INCORPORATED, a subsidiary of the Raytheon Company,

registered agent of Raytheon Engineers and

Constructors, Incorporated, Prentice-Hall Corporation, 2019 Park Street, Columbia, South

Carolina 29201,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-49-6-3AK)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bernard Lindemann, Stephen

Floyd Fisher, JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

complaint alleging age discrimination, in violation of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1985

& Supp. 1995). Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the

magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we grant Appellee's motion for summary affirmance. As

we conclude that the appeal is frivolous, we also grant Appellee's

motion for double costs, Fed. R. App. P. 38, but deny the motion

for attorney's fees. 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
#### Steven C. BOTTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49946.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 28, 1995.

John M. Schilmoeller, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michelle A. Freund, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from dismissal of Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion alleging denial of effective assistance of counsel. Appellant had been convicted of assault in the second degree, a class C felony, § 565.060, RSMo 1986, and sentenced to a suspended five-year term of imprisonment and supervised probation. Appellant’s probation was revoked, and execution of sentence was imposed.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Respondent, v. Alan WALLACH et al., Appellants.

No. 65314.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Feb. 7, 1995.

Joe Bill Carter, Kirkwood, for appellants.

Paul R. Sterrett, Chesterfield, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

Appellants, owners of property appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict which awarded them $35,000 damages for land taken by the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission. We affirm.

In their sole point on appeal, property owners contend the trial court erroneously sustained the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission’s objection during closing argument. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find the *807claim of error is without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Leah Z. Jaffe AZ Bar #034333

Workers’ Rights Clinic

University of Arizona Rogers College of Law

1145 N. Mountain Ave.

Tucson, AZ 85719

Telephone: (973) 370-3662

Fax: (520) 626-5233

ljaffe@email.arizona.edu

Attorney for the Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MARIA TOLANO; FRANCISCO JAVIER 

PONCE BERNAL; JOSE DANIEL 

MENDOZA; & RAQUEL HERRERA 

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

EL RIO BAKERY; & CARLOS 

GUILLERMO VARGAS MENDOZA

Defendants

CASE NO: CV-18-00125-TUC-RM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR: 

SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE ON 

MITIGATION AND POST VIOLATION 

EARNINGS AND LIMITED FURTHER 

BRIEFING ON THE REMEDY 

REQUESTED.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 16th day of September, 2019 I sent the document titled “Submission 

of Evidence on Mitigation and Post Violation Earnings and Limited Further Briefing on the 

Remedy Requested” with attachments by overnight delivery service to the following party:

Carlos Guillermo Vargas Mendoza

Unit B, 3546 Mission Rd.

Tucson, AZ 85731

____________/s/___________________

Leah Z. Jaffe

Case 4:18-cv-00125-RM Document 38 Filed 09/16/19 Page 1 of 1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS

NO. 01

- 15

- 00593

- CR

TROY XAVIER EVANS

Appellant,

On Appeal From the 17 4 th

District Court of Harris County

V. Trial Cause No. 1423548

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

ANGELA CAMERON, attorney of record for Appellant in the above cause,

would respectfully request the Court to grant h er motion to extend time for file brief.

In support of said motion, counsel would show unto the Court the following:

I.

This appeal lies from Appellant's conviction in The State of Texas v. Troy Xavier

Evans Cause Number 1423548 in the 174 th District Court of Harris County. Evans

was found guilty of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to twenty-five (25) years

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

– Institutional Division.

Notice of Appeal was timely filed. The brief is due on September 23

, 2015 . No prior

extensions ha ve been requested. ACCEPTED

01-15-00593-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

9/22/2015 10:02:01 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKII.

Counsel will be unable to file the brief in this cause as has bee n completing the

following tasks :

1. Preparing and filing a brief in Erick Hernandez v. State of Texas, 14

- 15

-

00209

- CR which was filed on August 19, 2015.

2. Preparing and filing a brief in Willie Clarke v. State of Texas, 01

- 15

- 00547

- CR, 01

- 15

- 00548

- CR, 01

- 15

- 00549

- CR which was filed on September 4,

2015.

3. Counsel had been doing extensive investigation into a possible Motion

for New Trial in State of Texas v. Christopher Cavazos

, Cause Numbers

14 02280 and 1443325 in the 1 84th District Court o f Harris County. The

deadline for filing a Motion for New Trial was September 9, 2015.

4. Preparing and filing a Petition for Discretionary Review in Lajuan Cecile

Bailey v. State of Texas, Cause No. PD

- 1087

- 15 which was filed on

September 21, 2015.

V I.

An extension of time is necessary so that the brief can be timely filed. This

motion is not made for the purpose of delay.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this

Honorable Court will grant this requested extension o f time to file the Appellant's

Brief in the above cause and extend the time for filing the brief for at least thirty (30)

days.Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Bunin

Chief Public Defender

/s/ 

## Angela Cameron

Angela Came ron

State Bar No. 00788672

Harris County Public Defender’s Office

1201 Franklin 13 th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Tel: 713

- 368

- 0016

angela.cameron@pdo.hctx.net

C ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 22 nd day of September 201 5 a copy of the foregoing instrument

has been electronically served upon the State of Texas.

/s/ 

## Angela Cameron

ANGELA CAMERON
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted, the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), D. Andrew Myers, the Chief Executive Officer of Scientific Learning Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





1.
The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated:           March 3, 2010





/s/ D. Andrew Myers


D. Andrew Myers


Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies and is being “furnished” with this Periodic Report, shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or otherwise subject to liability under that Section and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Periodic Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Molly C. Dwyer

Clerk of Court 

Office of the Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

Post Office Box 193939

San Francisco, California 94119-3939

415-355-8000

May 30, 2019

No.: 19-16111

D.C. No.: 4:18-cv-00093-RM

Short Title: William Donges, et al v. USAA Federal Savings Bank

Dear Appellant/Counsel

A copy of your notice of appeal/petition has been received in the Clerk's office of 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals docket number shown above has been assigned to this case. You must 

indicate this Court of Appeals docket number whenever you communicate with 

this court regarding this case. 

Please furnish this docket number immediately to the court reporter if you place an 

order, or have placed an order, for portions of the trial transcripts. The court 

reporter will need this docket number when communicating with this court.

The due dates for filing the parties' briefs and otherwise perfecting the appeal 

have been set by the enclosed "Time Schedule Order," pursuant to applicable 

FRAP rules. These dates can be extended only by court order. Failure of the 

appellant to comply with the time schedule order will result in automatic 

dismissal of the appeal. 9th Cir. R. 42-1.

Payment of the $505 docketing and filing fees is past due. Failure to correct this 

deficiency within 14 days will result in the dismissal of this case for failure to 

prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The fee is payable to the District Court. 

Appellants who are filing pro se should refer to the accompanying 

information sheet regarding the filing of informal briefs.
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH   Document 1442-2   Filed 12/28/21   Page 1 of 1
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 MEMSIC, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patricia Niu, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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/ PATRICIA NIU                          
|Patricia Niu                              
|Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
|May 14, 2010                              

This Certification shall
not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 6, 2011 

t0503 

Order 

 

May 6, 2011 

140193 (48) 

JEROME PLUNKETT, as Personal 

Representative of the ESTATE OF 

HOLLY MARIE PLUNKETT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140193 

 COA: 284320 

Ingham CC: 05-000166-MD 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 11, 

2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

 MARILYN KELLY, J., would grant reconsideration for the reasons stated in her 

dissenting statement in this case, 488 Mich ___ (2011). 

 HATHAWAY, J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant 

leave to appeal. 

 CAVANAGH, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with counsel of 

record. 

 ZAHRA, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 02, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 02, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0207. DAVID ABERCROMBIE v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CR299
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

T.B.,

Respondent

v.

C.M.W. NOW C.M.P.,

Respondent

v.

M.L.B. AND J.R.B.,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 314 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of December, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**Exhibit 10.24**

 

**Robert Mullen**

 

Pursuant to the terms of his employment as of March 31, 2004, Mr. Mullen receives an annual base salary of $300,000. In addition, Mr. Mullen’s annual targetedvariable compensation, which includes commissions and bonuses, is $500,000 based upon Company sales and revenue targets. Mr. Mullen is eligible for Stock Awards under the Company’s Equity Incentive Plans and may participate in theCompany’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Mr. Mullen and the Company have entered into a Change in Control Agreement. Further, Mr. Mullen is eligible for Company health benefits and may participate in the Company 401K plan offered to allemployees.
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

Michele Walker, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Gompers Habilitation Center, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-18-275-PHX-SMM (ESW)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 1.) On April 4, 2018,

Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.

(Doc. 9.) To date, no objections have been filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. Sullivan,

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy

of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written objections to the

Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s

factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is

a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”

Id.
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

- 2 -

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no

Objections having been made, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a valid claim.

Magistrate Judge Willett ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8.) Despite

the Order and its warning that a failure to comply would result in a dismissal pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b), Plaintiff did not comply.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Willett. (Doc. 9.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk of the Court

shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2018.
#### In the Interests of J.L. and S.L., Respondents, v. N.L., Appellant.

No. WD 40406.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 28, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 30, 1989.

Edward Berg, Columbia, for appellant.

Betty K. Wilson, Columbia, for respondents.

*705Before KENNEDY, C.J., and MANFORD and BERREY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

The natural mother appeals from a consolidated proceeding in which parental rights to her children, J.M.L. and S.B.L., were terminated pursuant to Section 211.-447.2(2)(a), RSMo 1986.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
H. Res. 837 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 21, 2009. 

Whereas Kentucky Wesleyan College was founded in 1858; 

Whereas the first commencement held at Kentucky Wesleyan 

College was in 1868; 

Whereas Kentucky Wesleyan College is a private, liberal arts 

Methodist college located in Owensboro, Kentucky; 

Whereas 956 students from 27 States and 6 foreign countries 

were enrolled at Kentucky Wesleyan College in the fall of 

2008; 

Whereas Kentucky Wesleyan College’s mission statement is 

to foster a liberal arts education that nourishes, stimulates, and prepares future leaders intellectually, spiritually, and physically to achieve success in life; 

Whereas Kentucky Wesleyan College has a number of notable 

alumni, including a United States Supreme Court justice, 

a Major League Baseball pitcher, and the founder of another Kentucky institution of higher education; 

Whereas the Kentucky Wesleyan Panthers compete in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II athletics; 

and 

Whereas from overseas mission trips to numerous local 

projects, Kentucky Wesleyan students meet the needs of 
2 

•HRES 837 EH 

others and positively impact the world around them: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes Kentucky Wesleyan College for over 

150 years of service as an institution of higher education; and 

(2) thanks Kentucky Wesleyan College for the valuable education it has provided to students. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc.
(the “Company") for the three month ended January 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Roger
Crystal, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





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





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







Date:
      March 12, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Dr.
      Roger
      CrystalDr.
      Roger CrystalChief
      Executive Officer





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/Robert CoppleRobert CoppleChief Financial Officer
 th
 /s/ Carol WaldmanName: Carol WaldmanTitle: Notary Public
 06/07/08