alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted November 17, 2005 Decided November 22, 2005

Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 05-2378 UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. KEITH BENNETT JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois
No. 03-20064-001 Michael P. McCuskey, Chief Judge

. O R D E R Keith Bennett Johnson was charged with bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and wire fraud, id. § 1343. Johnson entered into a written plea agreement that called for him to plead guilty to the bank-fraud count and waive his right to appeal his conviction or sentence. The district court sentenced him to 46 months of imprisonment to be followed with five years of supervised release. Johnson filed a notice of appeal despite the waiver, but his attorney now seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because she is unable to find a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Johnson was notified of counsel's motion, see Cir. R. 51(b), and has responded. We limit our review of the record only to those potential issues identified in counsel's facially adequate brief, see United States v. Tabb, 125 F.3d 583, 584 (7th Cir. 1997) (per curiam), and in Johnson's submissions. UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 05-2378 Page 2

Johnson’s plea agreement includes an unqualified promise to forego challenging, whether by direct appeal or collateral proceeding, “any and all issues relating to this plea agreement and conviction and to the sentence . . . on any ground whatever.” An appeal waiver is enforceable if entered into knowingly and voluntarily. United States v. Lockwood, 416 F.3d 604, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Thus, Johnson is barred from proceeding with this appeal unless he can overcome his waiver, and he cannot contest the waiver without challenging the entire plea agreement. See United States v. Whitlow, 287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel represents that Johnson has no desire to withdraw his guilty plea and, in the process, give up the benefits he received under the plea agreement. See United States v. Knox , 287 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2002) (withdrawing guilty plea may result in losing bargained-for benefits in plea agreement). Accordingly, an attempt to invalidate the waiver would be frivolous. See United States v. Hare , 269 F.3d 859, 860-61 (7th Cir. 2001). It matters not that Johnson proposes to argue that his attorney mishandled aspects of his case; the waiver he executed encompasses claims of ineffective assistance by trial counsel, and since the alleged deficiency is unrelated to the negotiation of the appeal waiver , the waiver is no less effective in precluding an argument about counsel’s performance. See Jones v. United States , 167 F.3d 1142, 1145 (7th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6611

CORNELIUS STRONG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety

and Correctional Services; RICHARD LANHAM,

Commissioner,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-95-3370-JFM)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cornelius Strong, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bruce Rosenblatt,

Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

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. Strong v. Robinson, No. CA-95-3370-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 29,

1996). 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
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350,as Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of TheSarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Mills LimitedPartnership (“Mills LP”) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,Laurence C. Siegel and Mary Jane Morrow, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer, respectively, of The Mills Corporation, in its capacity as thegeneral partner of Mills LP, certify on the date hereof that to our knowledge:

 

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MillsLP.

 

Dated: March 31, 2005

 

 
|   | /s/ Laurence C. Siegel                                                                                    |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Laurence C. Siegel                                                                                        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  of The Mills Corporation,  the general partner of  The Mills Limited Partnership |
|   |                                                                                                      |
|   | /s/ Mary Jane Morrow                                                                                      |
|   | Mary Jane Morrow                                                                                          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  of The Mills Corporation,  the general partner of  The Mills Limited Partnership |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
#### Peter Cahill, Respondent, v. United States Casualty Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs aud disbursements. Ro opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Burr and Rich, JJ., concurred.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Andy D. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. Andy D. TAYLOR, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

Nos. 69391, 70989.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 25, 1997.

Gary E. Brotherton, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Andy D. Taylor, Pacific, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of first-degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1994, and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced as a prior offender to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment to be served consecutively with a previous, unrelated sentence. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential *536value. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
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 Printing Components Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, John Dow, Chief Financial 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:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 17th day of May, 2007.



| | John Dow               
| | -----------------------
| | John Dow               
| | Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 18, 2021 **JUMITRIUS R. HUTCHINS v. CHATTANOOGA HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY D/B/A/ ERLANGER HEALTH SYSTEM** 

**Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 20C749**  **L. Marie Williams, Judge**

**___________________________________ No. E2020**  **- 01486**  **- COA**  **- R3**  **- CV** 

**___________________________________** Because the notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

**Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Righ t**  **; Appeal Dism** **issed** D. MICHAEL SW INEY, C.J.; J OHN W. M C C LARTY , J.; AND , T HOMAS R. F RIERSON , II , J.
Jumitrius R. Hutchins , Stevenson , Alabama , pro se appellant. Arthur P. Brock and Brian Christopher Bush , Chattanooga , Tennessee, for the appellee, Chattanooga

- Hamilton County Hospital Authority dba Erlanger Health System.
**MEMORANDUM OPINION 1**  Upon a review of the record, this Court determined that the notice of appeal was not timely filed in accordance with Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appe llate Procedure.

1 Rule 10 of the Rules o f the Court of Appeals provides: This Court, with the concurrence o f a ll judges part icipat ing in the case, may affirm, reverse or mo dify the act io ns of the trial c ourt by memorandum opinio n when a formal

opinio n would have no precedential val ue. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion i t shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be ci ted or relied on fo r any reason in any unrelated case
.- 2
-

The Trial Court’s judgment was entered on September 28, 2020. Appellant, Jumitrius R. Hutchins (“Appellant”), filed his notice of appeal in this Court on October 29, 2020, which is thirty

- one days after entry of the Trial Court’s judgment. By Order entered May 4, 2021, this Court ordered A

ppellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant responded to our show cause order and stated he was late in filing due to health issues. A notice of appeal “shall be file d with the clerk of the appellate court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from . . ..”T enn. R. App. P 4(a). “ The thirty

- day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in civil cases.” Albert v . Frye , 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn. 2004); see also Ball v. McDowell, 288 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tenn. 2009). If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, this Court is not at liberty to waive the procedural defect. Tenn. R. App. P. 2.; see also Arfken & Assocs., P.A. v. Simpson Bridge Co. , 85 S.W.3d 789, 791 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). As Appellant failed to file his notice of appeal within thirty days of entry of the Trial Court’s judgment, the notice of appeal was untimely filed, thus depriving this Court of jurisdiction. This appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs on appeal are taxed to A ppellant, Jumitrius R. Hutchins, for which execution may issue. **PER CURIAM**
live-ex43_118.htm



Exhibit 4.3

 



 

Live Ventures Incorporated number cert.9999 shares ****9,000,000,000**** cusip 999999zz9 common stock incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada $0.001 par value common stock this certifies that *specimen* is the owner of * nine billion and 00/100 fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock of Live Ventures Incorporated transferable on the books of the corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until counter signed by the transfer agent and registered by the registrar. Dated January 01, 2009 countersigned and registered: vstock transfer llc transfer agent and registrar by: authorized signature chief executive officer

 

 



The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations.

 


	
TEN COM
	
-  as tenants in common
	
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT
	
Custodian

	
TEN ENT
	
-  as tenants by the entireties
	
 
	
(Cust)      (Minor)

	
JT TEN
	
-  as joint tenants with the right of

   Survivorship and not as tenants

   In common
	
Act
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
State
	
 




 

Additional abbreviations may also be used through not in the above list.

 


					
	
For value received,                                              herby sell, assign and transfer unto 

	
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

	
 

	
 

	
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 
	
shares

	
 

	
of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

	
 

	
 
	
, Attorney

	
to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises

	
 

	
Dated
	
 
	
 

	
 

	
X
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE. THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions)
#### Louis H. Meht, Respondent, v. Lena Meht, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred; Jenks, J., taking no part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       5,704,014
<SECURITIES>                                 1,595,167
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,498,671
<PP&E>                                       5,278,671
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,343,578
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,450,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          233,908
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       14,181,659
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,879
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,270,198)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,450,504
<SALES>                                        274,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               510,697
<CGS>                                           78,533
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,999,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,488,375)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,488,375)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,488,375)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.20)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.18

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO  THE MILLS CORPORATION  AMENDED AND RESTATED 1994 EXECUTIVE EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to The Mills Corporation Amended and Restated 1994 Executive Equity Incentive Plan (the
"Plan") is adopted as of December 23, 2003 by the Board of Directors (the "Board") of The Mills
Corporation (the "Company").

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is desirable and in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan
to provide that the gain from the exercise of stock options granted under the Plan may be deferred by the optionee subject to the terms of the Company's Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan; and

WHEREAS, Section 24 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended by the Board.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is amended as follows:





---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed by the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, as of December 23, 2003.

| |  | THE MILLS CORPORATION
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | By:                  

|Attest: | /s/MARY ELLEN SERAVALLIMary Ellen Seravalli
Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Secretary | 
|------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

2

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2006

The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                  |  |  |  |        |  |                         
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ------------------------
|                  |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Joseph J. Bouffard  
|                  |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Joseph J. Bouffard      
|                  |  |  |  | Title: |  | President               
|                  |  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Anthony R. Cole     
|                  |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Anthony R. Cole         
|                  |  |  |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 9, 2008 |  |  |  |        |  |
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAUL SANFORD,

Plaintiff(s), CASE NUMBER: 09-12609

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant(s).

 /

 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On April 27, 2010, Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder submitted a Report and

Recommendation (Doc. #24) recommending that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. #15) and GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. #20). Because the Court has not received objections from either party

within the time frame provided for in 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(3),

the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED. 

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: May 20, 2010
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Paul Sanford by electronic means

or U.S. Mail on May 20, 2010.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KELLY ELIAS, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-13527

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER,

RIVERS & GOLDEN, P.C., et al., 

Defendants.

JUDGMENT 

The above entitled matter having come before the court, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is hereby entered in favor

of defendants and against plaintiff.

SO ORDERED. 

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

BY: s/Josephine Chaffee 

 DEPUTY COURT CLERK

Dated: April 4, 2011

2:09-cv-13527-GCS-MKM Doc # 31 Filed 04/04/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 157
# Fourt h Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 17, 2023

No. 04

- 23

- 00125

- CV

IN RE Philip M. ROSS

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

On February 14, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus containing a request

for stay. After considering the petition and this record, this court concludes relator is not entitled

to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mand amus is DENIED

. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s request for stay is DENIED as moot. 2

It is so ORDERED on February 17, 2023

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020

- CI

- 05671 , styled Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Philip Martin

Ross , pending in the 224th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Stacey L. Mathews presiding.

2 Opinion to follow.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 154 (Friday, August 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18184]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Biotechnology Research and Development 
Corporation (``BRDC'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 30, 2008, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (the ``Act''), Biotechnology Research and 
Development Corporation (``BRDC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Global Protein Products, Inc., Winslow, ME 
has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and BRDC intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 13, 1988, BRDC filed its original notification pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on May 12, 
1988 (53 FR 16919).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
23, 2003. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on October 14, 2003 (68 FR 59197).

Patricia Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E8-18184 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M