alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20853 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCUS LYNN JOHNS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-574-1

-------------------- January 16, 2003 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The court-appointed counsel for Marcus Lynn Johns has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Johns has received a copy of counsel’s motion and briefs, but he has not filed a response . Our review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused fromNo. 01-20853 -2- further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and StockholdersSamsonite Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
   registration statements (Nos. 333-05467, 333-19281, 333-20775, 333-28663,
   333-52185 and 333-53935) on Form S-8 of Samsonite Corporation of our report
   dated March 17, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
   Samsonite Corporation and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2000 and 1999, and
   the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
   (deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
   ended January 31, 2000, and the related financial statement schedule, which
   report appears in the January 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of
   Samsonite Corporation.





Denver, ColoradoApril 17, 2000
1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inter-Atlantic Financial,
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   Date: May 13, 2008/s/ Andrew S. Lerner

Name: Andrew S. Lerner
Title: Chief Executive Officer
[689 NYS2d 324]

#### In the Matter of Leonard F. Walentynowicz, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

March 19, 1999

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Vincent L. Scarsella,*Buffalo, for petitioner.

*Edward C. Cosgrove,*Buffalo, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on November 2, 1955, and maintains an office in Buffalo. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with neglecting legal matters and other acts of professional misconduct.

Respondent has admitted the allegations in the petition and expressed remorse for his misconduct. We note that, during *151the period when the misconduct occurred, respondent was suffering from serious health problems. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

OMAR J. GATES,

 

Petitioner, Case Number 2:09-CV-13864

 Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.

BLAINE LAFLER,

Respondent.

____________________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

and

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the Court’s denial of a certificate

of appealability (Docket #16). On September 28, 2011, the Court denied Petitioner’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus and denied a certificate of appealability on all issues raised by Petitioner in

his petition. After a thorough review of Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and the brief in

support of that motion, as well as a review of the file and the Court’s September 28, 2011, Opinion

and Order, the Court is not persuaded that a certificate of appealability should be granted with

respect to any of Petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s Motion

for Reconsideration (Docket #16).

Petitioner also has filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket #17). The

standard for issuing a certificate of appealability has a higher threshold than the standard for

granting in forma pauperis status, which only requires a showing that the appeal is not frivolous.

See Foster v. Ludwick, 208 F.Supp.2d 750, 764 (E.D. Mich. 2002). For the reasons set forth in the

September 28, 2011, Opinion and Order, the Court finds that the issues presented by Petitioner’s

2:09-cv-13864-LPZ-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 11/30/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1123
-2-

appeal are frivolous. Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d 547, 549 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Fed. R. App. P.

24(a). Accordingly, Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on appeal (Docket #17)

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 30, 2011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on November 30, 2011.

S/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-13864-LPZ-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 11/30/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1124
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 this Report of Uplift Nutrition, Inc. (the "Registrant") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the " Report"), I, Gary C. Lewis, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1) This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.    Date:May 14, 2008By:/s/Gary C. LewisGary C. LewisChairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)   Date:May 14, 2008By:/s/ Gary C. LewisGary C. LewisPrincipal Financial Officer (CFO) and Principal Accounting Officer
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc. on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Georgia S. Derrico,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Southern Financial, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  This Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                           s/s Georgia S. Derrico
                           ----------------------
                           Georgia S. Derrico
                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                           March 28, 2003


                            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 Annual Report of Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc. on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patricia A. Ferrick,
Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Southern Financial ,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  This Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                           s/s Patricia A. Ferrick
                           -----------------------
                           Patricia A. Ferrick
                           Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
                           President
                           March 28, 2003
#### In the Interest of B.A.B., a Minor.

No. 70926.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 14, 1997.

Byron Cohen, Clayton, for appellant.

Nancy L. Sido, Clayton, for respondent.

Brian P. Seltzer, Clayton, Guardian Ad Litem.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*874
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Mother of B.A.B., bom November 20, 1995, appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights. We affirm. The judgment of the court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00299-CR

Steven Tyrone Russell

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 155-20-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 23, 2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JASON L. BECKHAM, a/k/a Jay at the Shop,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00604-JFA-2; 3:18-

cv-02956-JFA)

Submitted: January 19, 2021 Decided: January 22, 2021

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason L. Beckham, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason L. Beckham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Beckham 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit
10.46
 
 ADDENDUM
TO PRODUCTION PAYMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT
 BETWEEN
GOLDEN PHOENIX MINERALS, INC. AND
 ASHDOWN
MILLING COMPANY, LLC
 DATED AS
OF THE 26TH DAY OF
FEBRUARY, 2005
 
 
 THIS
ADDENDUM is entered into as of February 6, 2008, by and between Golden Phoenix
Minerals, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”) and Ashdown Milling
Company, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“Purchaser” or “Ashdown
Milling”) for the purpose of amending that certain Production Payment Purchase
Agreement, dated September 26, 2005, by and between the Company and Ashdown
Milling (the “Production Payment Purchase Agreement”), (for valuable
consideration, including payments to two members of Ashdown Milling to
extinguish their membership interests, and a commitment by the Company to make a
first quarter of 2008 payment to Ashdown Milling by April 30, 2008, the receipt
of such consideration is acknowledged) to reduce the total payment obligation
and reduce the rate of payment from 12% to 7.2% as follows:
 
 1.1       Purchase of Production
Payment.  In exchange for the Purchase Price set forth in
Section 1.2 of this Agreement, the Company agrees to sell and the Purchaser
agrees to purchase a remaining production payment of $1,467,006.94, as of
February 6, 2008, reflecting payments already made pursuant to the schedule
attached to this Addendum.  The payment shall be paid exclusively from
the Company’s share of production of base and precious minerals produced from
the Ashdown Mine allocated to the Company pursuant to the Ashdown Joint Venture
Agreement.  The rate of payment shall be equal to a seven and two
tenths percent (7.2%) Net Smelter (Refinery) Return on the entire production of
precious and base minerals produced from the Ashdown Mine, but paid solely from
the Company’s share of production distributed to the Company pursuant to the
Ashdown Joint Venture Agreement.  Until the production payment is paid
by the Company in full, the Company shall provide the Purchaser with quarterly
reports in writing reporting production and sales of minerals, both precious and
base, from the Ashdown Mine and the calculation of the production payment to be
paid by the Company.  The production payment shall be paid to the
Purchaser quarterly by the end of the quarter following the quarter the
production occurs.
 
 All other
provisions of the Production Payment Purchase Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect without change.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum or caused their duly
authorized officers to execute this Addendum as of the date first above
written.
 
 
 
 GOLDEN
      PHOENIX MINERALS, INC.
              ASHDOWN
      MILLING COMPANY, LLCBy:/s/ David A.
      Caldwell
                David A. Caldwell, CEO
              By:/s/ Robert P.
      Martin
                Robert
      P. Martin, ManagerBy:/s/ Kenneth
      Ripley
                Kenneth Ripley, Manager
[Cite as Davis v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2019-Ohio-3869.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

TRAVONTE DAVIS 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

SUMMIT COUNTY COMMON PLEAS 

COURT 

 Respondent 

C.A. No. 29533 

ORIGINAL ACTION IN 

HABEAS CORPUS 

Dated: September 25, 2019 

 

 PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} Travonte Davis has attempted to petition this Court for a writ of habeas corpus to 

order his release from custody. Because Mr. Davis has not complied with the mandatory 

requirements of R.C. 2969.25, this Court must dismiss the petition. 

{¶2} Mr. Davis completed a form titled “PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY.” He 

completed the 15-page form and filed it with the Summit County Clerk of Courts. On the 

form, he identified himself as the petitioner, but failed to indicate a respondent in the 

caption. He indicated in the body of the petition, however, that he challenged the 

judgment of the Summit County Common Pleas Court. 

{¶3} In addition to other defects with his petition, Mr. Davis failed to comply 

with the statutory filing mandate that requires this Court to dismiss this case. R.C. 

2969.25 sets forth specific filing requirements for inmates who file a civil action against 
C.A. No. 29533 

Page 2 of 3 

 

a government employee or entity. As noted above, Mr. Davis identified the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas on the cover of his petition, without identifying any other 

respondent; the court of common pleas is a government entity. Mr. Davis, incarcerated 

in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, is an inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and (D). A 

case must be dismissed if an inmate fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of 

R.C. 2969.25 in the commencement of the action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. 

Court, 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671, ¶ 6 (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are 

mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.”). 

{¶4} Mr. Davis did not pay the cost deposit required by this Court’s Local Rules. 

He also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which sets forth specific requirements for 

an inmate who seeks to proceed without paying the cost deposit. Mr. Davis did not file 

an affidavit of indigency and he did not file a statement of his prisoner trust account that 

sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as 

certified by the institutional cashier. 

{¶5} Because Mr. Davis did not comply with the mandatory requirements of 

R.C. 2969.25, the case is dismissed. Costs taxed to Mr. Davis. 

{¶6} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default 

notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58. 

 

 THOMAS A. TEODOSIO 

 FOR THE COURT 

CARR, J. 

HENSAL, J. 
C.A. No. 29533 

Page 3 of 3 

 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

TRAVONTE DAVIS, Pro se, Petitioner.
Enertopia Corp.: Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com









Mr. Jeff Paikin 
400-69 John St. South 
Hamilton, ON L8N
2B9 
P - 905-777-0000 

April 10, 2014 

Dear Mr. Paikin,



This letter confirms your appointment to, and your acceptance
of, your role as a member of Enertopia Corp.'s Advisory Board for a period of
not less than one year, but to be determined by certain performance thresholds
as noted below.

As an advisor to Enertopia Corp, you agree to make available to
the Board of Directors of Enertopia and to myself as President/CEO of Enertopia,
your time and expertise as required to assist us to evaluate opportunities and
procedures in the legal marijuana sector. We would expect your expertise in the
areas of project evaluation; building selection; finance and such other areas as
you feel best represent your abilities. 

In return for your agreeing to assist us in this manner, we
will pay to you the following schedule of compensation for your participation on
our Advisory Board, to a total of 472,500 restricted common shares. Any/all
shares issued must be in compliance with all Canadian and US regulations, and
you must remain a member of our Advisory Board at the time of each compensation
award. 

The table below represents milestones to be achieved at the
building location known to you and to Enertopia Corp, but not disclosed herein
due to reasons of competitiveness within the industry. It is understood that the
plant will be outfitted and designed to produce medical marijuana under Health
Canada’s MMPR program. 


	Shares On 
Signing 	Shares On 
Municipal
      
Approval 	Shares On Health
 Canada
      
Approval 	Shares on First
 Harvest 	Shares on 
$5,000,000 in
      
Plant Revenue 
	90,000 	45,000 	90,000 	135,000 	112,500
  












We very much appreciate your time and expertise and believe you can make a valuable contribution to Enertopia's success.


If this is acceptable to you, please sign this letter as specified below, and return to me via scan at
 mcallister@enertopia.com or
 kameo300@gmail.com at your earliest convenience. 


Yours Truly, 


Robert McAllister 

President / CEO 

Enertopia Corp 




_________________________________

Accepted: Jeff Paikin
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA VI T B AG HD AS AR YA N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J R ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 71851 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 569- 313 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e bruary17, 2011

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: G O O D W IN , K L E IN F E L D , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es.

D a vi tB a ghda s a ry a n, ac i t i z e n of A rm e ni a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

a n or de rof th e B o a r do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m . H e a s s e rts th a t th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s ( I J ) a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n r e n d e r e da t h is 

# FI LED FEB 25 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS20 04 hear i ng w as caused i n l ar ge partby the i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of hi s r et ai ned c o u n s e l. T he r e c or d on i t s f

a c e a m pl yde m ons tr a t e s i ne f f e c t i ve pe r f

orm anc e by B a g h d a s a ry a n ’s c o u n s e l, G lo r iaW e il- H e rr e r a . Se e Ca s t i l lo - Pe r ezv . I NS , 212 F . 3d 51 8, 52 5 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). C orrobo rat i ng evi dence i n the form of m edi ca l and o ther r e c o r d s w a s a v a ilab le b e f o r e th e h e ar in g , y e t W e il- H e rr e r af a ile dto in tr o du c e it. T h e ab s e n c e o f

c o rr o b o r a tio n w a s ak e yf a c to rin th e a g e n c y ’s f

a ilu r e to c r e d it pe t i t i one r ’ s t e s t i m ony . B e c aus e i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e byc ouns e l m ayha ve c h a n g e dth e o u tc o m e a t th e m e r its h e ar in g , p e titio n e rw a s d e n ie ddu e p r o c e s s . See Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 3 - 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; L ara-T orres v . A s h c r o ft , 3 8 3 F .3 d9 6 8 , 9 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , as am ended , 40 4 F . 3d 11 05 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) .W e gr a ntthe pe t i t i on a nd r e m and f orane w he ar i ng and, the r e f or e , do not reach th e i ssu e o f cred i b i l i ty.

P E T I T I ON GR AN T E D A ND C AU S E R E MAND E D.