alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LINDA SEXTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 99-2530 KENNETH S. APFEL, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-98-197-2) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 4, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELVernon M. Williams, Erick A. Bowman, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. John M. S acchetti, Chief C ounsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Robert S. Drum, AssistantRegional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Linda Sexton appeals from the denial of Social Security disability benefits. We affirm. Sexton suffers from anxiety, depression, and severe back andshoulder pain. Based on these conditions, she twice petitioned for disability insurance benefits. Her first petition was denied by an administrative law judge ("ALJ") in 1994. An ALJ denied her second petition in 1997. The district court affirmed the denial of benefits, and this appeal followed. Sexton contends that the ALJ made two errors. First, she asserts theALJ was incorrect when he determined that her anxiety and depression were not severe. The record, however, contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion, and we therefore affirm it. See Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Sexton's second claim is that the ALJ erred when examining thevocational expert. Specifically, Sexton alleges that the ALJ's hypothetical questions did not take the findings of Dr. Russell McKnight into account, instead relying on findings that predated McKnight's examination. This is incorrect; the ALJ asked the vocational expert questions that encompassed McKnight's conclusions. While the ALJ later determined McKnight's findings deserved little weight, the examination of the vocational expert was thorough. For these reasons, we affirm the district court's order upholding the denial of disability benefits. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOAN McCRAY,

Plaintiff, No. 09-cv-10896

vs. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

ANNIE CARTER, TERRY CATHINGS,

MARVIS COFIELD, JOYCE HAYES-GILES,

OTIS MATHIS III, DAVID MURRAY, CARLA

D. SCOTT, IDA SHORT, MARIE L. 

THORNTON, TYRONE WINFREY, JIMMY

WOMACK, and the DETROIT BOARD

OF EDUCATION,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

JUDGMENT

The Court having this date entered an Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motions

for Summary Judgment and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint, in its entirety, with prejudice, and

being otherwise fully advised in the premises,

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a JUDGMENT OF

DISMISSAL, WITH PREJUDICE, be, and hereby is, entered.

Dated: March 29, 2013 s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on March 29, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

2:09-cv-10896-GER-MJH Doc # 74 Filed 03/29/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 2376
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Keith A. Sawottke, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RSCHoldings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [Not Applicable]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:October 31, 2007       /s/ Keith A. Sawottke         Keith A. Sawottke    Senior Vice President, and    Chief Financial Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LEANNE EICOFF,

Appellant,

v.

STEVEN FELSENTHAL, ESQ, NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, as 

Trustee of the HELENE E. EICOFF TRUST, and SUGAR FELSENTHAL 

GRAIS & HELSINGER, LLP,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-872

[January 13, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Paige Gillman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CA-004196-

XXXX-MB.

Daniel A. McGowan, Adrian P. Thomas and Michele M. Thomas of 

Adrian Philip Thomas, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Jonathan A. Galler and Lawrence J. Miller of Gutter Chaves Josepher 

Rubin Forman Fleisher Miller P.A., Boca Raton, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-CV-10463

FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN (477)

FIREARMS, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON BURDEN OF PROOF MOTION

A status conference was held on December 22, 2009, in the above-captioned

matter. At the conference, the parties noted a difference of opinion with respect to the

burden of proof and indicated that they wished to resolve it by motion. The court will

order a briefing schedule to facilitate resolution of this upcoming motion. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Government shall file a motion with respect to the

burden of proof by January 15, 2010. The claimants shall have until January 29, 2010,

to file a response. The Government shall have until February 12, 2010, to file a reply.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 23, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, December 23, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-10463-RHC-MJH Doc # 55 Filed 12/23/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 372
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,902
<SECURITIES>                                   208,032
<RECEIVABLES>                                  274,094
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,109
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 495,137
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,435
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       479,702
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   495,137
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,467
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,308
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,159
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,159
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,159
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.8


 





 


September
11, 2013


 


Hard
Rock Solutions


Attn:
Julia Isenhour


4817
Country Farms Drive


Windsor,
CO 80528


 


Our
auditors, Hein & Associates LLP, are engaged in an audit of our financial statements. In connection therewith, they desire
that you confirm to them certain details of the agreement between us and Hard Rock Solutions (“Hard Rock”). Please confirm
the following about our agreement with Hard Rock. Additionally, please confirm that this represents the entirety of our agreement
and there are no side arrangements to the agreement below.


 


		1)	Superior Drilling Products (“Superior”)
will absorb 25% of the cost of each tool sale to Hard Rock. The absorption of this cost is not contingent on Hard Rock generating
revenue from the tool sold.



 


		2)	Upon receipt of tool rental income, Hard
Rock will deduct any additional expenses paid to Superior for the tool since the purchase (for example, repairs and modifications)
and pay Superior a commission of 25% of this net amount.



 


		3)	Payment of the commission is contingent
on Hard Rock receiving payment from the customer that rented the tool.



 


Please
confirm your agreement by signing below. Please return this letter directly to Hein & Associates LLP, 14755 Preston Road, Suite
320, Dallas, Texas 75254. A stamped, addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Thank you for your cooperation.


 


Very
truly yours,


 


/s/
Annette Meier


Annette Meier


Superior
Drilling Products


 


We
agree that the terms of the agreement above are correct, represent the entirety of the agreement between Hard Rock and Superior,
and there are no side arrangements to the agreement above, with the following exceptions (if any):


 


	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Name and Title	/s/ Julia Isenhour
	Signature	Julia Isenhour
	Date	9/12/13
Exhibit 10.10    April 9, 2011  AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TERM OF PROMISSORY NOTE TO OCTOBER 9, 2011   By this Agreement, POWRtec International Corp., a Delaware corporation ("Maker") and The Management AB ("Creditor"), do hereby extend the term of that certain Promissory Note dated  July 9, 2010 (Note) to become due October 9, 2011 on the same terms and conditions as set forth in that Note with the sole exception of the due date.  A copy of the Note is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   POWRtec International Corp.    By: /s/ Grant Jasmin Grant Jasmin, President  Agreed: The Management AB   By:  /s/ Anders Sagadin Anders Sagadin   POWRtec Corporation 745 Camden Ave., Suite D Campbell, CA 95008 408-374-1900
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60296

Summary Calendar

EFFORT ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JERRY MCADAMS; GRANDVIEW LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 

INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:16-CV-190

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by 

that court. The order of Judge Mills correctly answers all of Plaintiff’s claims 

and no more need be said. 

AFFIRMED.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 9, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60296 Document: 00514109030 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the annual
report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,090
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             200
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                18,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     32,461
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          57,022
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            57,498
<LOANS>                                        186,259
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 315,849
<DEPOSITS>                                     210,100
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,877
<LONG-TERM>                                      7,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 315,849
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,669
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,061
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   944
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,674
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,629
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,129
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,545
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      738
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (32)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,842
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,842
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,825
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.97
<LOANS-NON>                                          9
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,374
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,520
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      434
<RECOVERIES>                                         4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,828
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,828
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            621



</TABLE>
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-11060.COMMODITIES.OrderDenyingPreliminaryInjunction.wpd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

COMMODITIES EXPORT COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-CV-11060-DT

CITY OF DETROIT and 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER TERMINATING AS MOOT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On July 14, 2009, the court conducted a scheduling conference in the abovecaptioned matter. During the conference, the parties agreed that, in light of the

intended schedule on which this case will proceed, Plaintiff’s pending motion for

preliminary injunction can be terminated as moot. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plafintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction [Dkt # 13] is

TERMINATED as moot. A separate scheduling order will issue. 

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 16, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, July 16, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-11060-RHC-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 07/16/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 76
Order issued February 25, 2014, Withdrawn; Order filed February 2 6 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00502

- CV

____________ CHRISTINE E. REULE , Appellant

V.
M & T MORTGAGE, M & T BANK BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

BAYVI EW FINANCIAL TRADING GROUP, LP, BAYVIEW FINANCIAL LP AND HUG HS, WATTERS, ASKANAS E, LLP, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008

- 75636



### O R D E R

On November 25 , 2013, this court ordered t he Harri s County District Clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before March 14, 2014 , containing the trial court’s Order Regarding Transcripts signed on or about January 9, 2014

.2

Counsel for appellees notified the court that the requested order is inc luded in the Supplemental Clerk’s Record filed January 17, 2014.
Accordingly, we WITHDRAW the order issued February 25, 2014, requiring a supplemental clerk’s record.

PER CURIAM
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Exhibit 32.1                                                           
|                                                                       
|Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to
|Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002                          

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MASS Petroleum Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary Chayko, Chief Executive 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 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.



By: /s/ Gary ChaykoGary ChaykoPresident and Chief Executive Officer

July 15, 2010

|
|
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLARD L. SLOAN, EUGENE J.

WINNINGHAM, and JAMES L. KELLEY, 

on behalf of themselves and a similarly 

situated class, Case No. 09-cv-10918

Hon. Paul D. Borman

Plaintiffs, Magistrate Mona K. Majzoub

v. Class Action

BORGWARNER, INC., BORGWARNER 

FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLANS and

BORGWARNER DIVERSIFIED 

TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________/

EXHIBIT 15 

TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AS TO LIABILITY

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-15 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 5437