alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-11083

Conference Calendar

 

ADRIAN GUTIERREZ MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EULON ROSS-TAYLOR, Doctor, Medical Director; SCHOCK, 

Behavioral Assessment Psychologist,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:01-CV-189-BG

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Adrian Gutierrez-Martinez, Texas prisoner # 562996, appeals

the dismissal of his Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) claim

for failure to state a claim. He argues that his predisciplinary mental status exams violated psychiatric policy and

therefore caused him to be disciplined for conduct that was a

manifestation of his mental illness and for which he should not

have been held accountable.
No. 02-11083

-2-

Gutierrez’s self-styled ADA claim is in fact a thinly veiled

challenge to the validity of his disciplinary convictions. 

Absent proof that his disciplinary convictions have been

overturned or otherwise declared invalid, Gutierrez cannot bring

a civil action seeking damages based on a finding of guilt on his

disciplinary charges, because success on his civil claim would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary convictions.

Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 

He has therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief could

be granted.

Gutierrez’s appeal is without arguable merit and is

dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of this appeal as

frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

in addition to the strike for the district court’s dismissal. 

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Gutierrez has also had a second civil rights suit dismissed as

frivolous. See Gutierrez Martinez v. Leher, No. 02-10491 (5th

Cir. Sept. 17, 2002) (unpublished). He is BARRED from bringing

any civil action or appeal in forma pauperis while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he shows that he

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES BAR IMPOSED.
176 La. 641

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dan DAVIS (two cases).

Nos. 32172, 32173.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1933.

John R. Hunter, of Alexandria, for appellant.

G. L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Cleveland Dear, Dist. Atty., of Alexandria (James O’Niell, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.

O’NIELL, C. J.

The defendant broke jail and escaped, after he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary and had appealed from the conviction and sentence; and he is yet a fugitive from justice. The state, therefore, through the Attorney General, has moved to dismiss the appeal. Article 548 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if the appellant in a criminal case be a fugitive from justice on the day the appeal is returnable, or on the day fixed for hearing the appeal, the appeal will be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.3.1.3
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 
AMENDED AND RESTATED 2001 MOODY’S CORPORATION 
KEY EMPLOYEES’ STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
(as amended, December 18, 2017 and April 15, 2019)


WHEREAS, Moody’s Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Amended and Restated 2001 Moody’s Corporation Key Employees’ Stock Incentive Plan, as amended December 18, 2017 and on April 15, 2019 (as amended, the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Company has determined the Plan should be amended to modify the eligibility for retirement vesting under the Plan for certain grantees.
NOW, THEREFORE, Section 2(bb) of the Plan is hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2020 to read as follows:
Retirement: Termination of employment with the Company or an Affiliate (i) for Participants who are (A) hired or rehired on or after January 1, 2020 or (B) employed by the Company as of January 1, 2020 and are younger than age 45 on such date, after such Participant has both attained age 55 and had ten or more consecutive years of service with the Company through and ending with the date of such Participant’s voluntary termination of employment, or (ii) for all other Participants, after such Participant has both attained age 55 and had five or more consecutive years of service with the Company through and ending with the date of such Participant’s voluntary termination of employment; or, with the prior written consent of the Committee that such termination be treated as a Retirement hereunder, termination of employment under other circumstances.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Michael Leeb, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Skyline Multimedia
     Entertainment, Inc;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
     prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
     the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent functions):

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
     annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
     controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
     controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including
     any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
     weaknesses.

October 7, 2003


/s/ Michael Leeb
----------------
Name: Michael Leeb
Title: Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 7.2 - Calculation of Bank of Portugal Non-Consolidated Solvency Ratio

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  NON-CONSOLIDATED
                                                    ----------------------------------------------
                                                    12/31/2002        12/31/2001        12/31/2000
                                                    ----------        ----------        ----------
<S>                                                  <C>               <C>               <C>
1. TIER I CAPITAL

      Capital                                          529,138           525,000           523,738
      Reserves (including undivided profit)            194,399           145,383           143,528
      Issue Premium                                  1,193,363         1,174,331         1,212,080
      Other                                             17,828            35,992            42,152
                                                    ----------        ----------        ----------
                                                     1,934,728         1,880,706         1,921,498

   Deductions
      Intangible Assets and Deferred Costs (1)         (64,089)          (18,134)          (38,623)
                                                    ----------        ----------        ----------
            Eligible Tier I Capital                  1,870,639         1,862,572         1,882,875

2. TIER II CAPITAL

      Subordinated Debt (2)                            660,608           773,991           759,360
      Reavaluation Reserves                             42,577            42,577            42,577
                                                    ----------        ----------        ----------
                                                       703,185           816,568           801,937

3. DEDUCTIONS

      Shareholdings over 10%                        (1,838,469)       (1,821,868)       (1,932,169)
      Other                                             (4,586)           (3,860)           (3,287)
                                                    ----------        ----------        ----------
                                                    (1,843,055)       (1,825,728)       (1,935,456)
                                                    ----------        ----------        ----------

4. ELIGIBLE CAPITAL = 1 + 2 - 3                        730,769           853,412           749,356

5. TOTAL RISK-WEIGHTED ASSETS                        8,956,791         8,613,287         8,008,869
   Solvency Ratio (=4/5)                                  8.16%             9.91%             9.36%
  (1/5)                                                  20.89%            21.62%            23.51%
</TABLE>

----------
(1)   Improvements to leased property,public campaigns,and extraordinary
      contributions to the Pension Fund

(2)   Subordinated bonds and Participation certificates, limited to 50% of
      Elegible Tier I Capital


                                      198
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 Annual Report of Sonic Solutions (the "Company") on Form
      10-K for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul F.
      Norris, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of
      the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
      of
      the United States Code, 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 result of operations of the
                Company
                at the dates and for the periods
                indicated.




This
      certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.




Date:
      June 21, 2008






By: /s/
      Paul F. Norris




Name:
      Paul F. Norris


Title:
      Executive
      Vice President,Acting
      Chief Financial Officerand
      General Counsel
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 on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert O. Bond, as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i)   the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and (ii)   the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





/s/   ROBERT
O. BOND


Robert O.
Bond


President
and Chief Operating Officer





August 7,
2008














This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not 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 Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version 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.
CONVERTIBLE
      PROMISSORY NOTE





$3,138.49                                                                                                          Denver,
      Colorado


January
      1,
      2004





FOR
      VALUE RECEIVED, PARK-PREMIER MINING
      COMPANY, a Utah corporation (the “Maker”), herby promises to pay to the order of
      Douglas Lee (the “Holder”), the principal sum of Three Thousand One Hundred
      Thirty-eight and 49/100 US Dollars ($3,138.49), together with interest on the
      unpaid balance at the rate of Twelve Percent (12%) per annum, on or before
      January 1, 2007, subject to conversion as described below.  Accrued
      interest will be added to the principal of the note on each annual anniversary
      date if not paid.




This
      Note may be converted into shares
      of Maker’s common stock at the conversion price of $.10 per share or such other
      conversion price as the board of directors may deem appropriate, not in excess
      of $.10 per share, until the due date hereof, at the Holder’s
      option.





This
      Note is subject to prepayment, in
      whole or in part, at the option of the Maker without penalty.  Such
      prepayments shall be applied first to interest accrued and then to the principal
      due hereunder.





In
      case the Note shall not be paid in
      full whenever it shall become due, the Maker agrees to pay all costs and
      expenses of collection including reasonable attorney’s fees, not to exceed 15%
      of the unpaid balance.




All
      rights and obligations hereunder
      shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado.  If any part
      of the assets or capital stock of maker is sold or transferred without Holder’s
      prior written consent, except sales and transfers in the ordinary course of
      business and except transfers by devise, descent or by operation of law upon
      the
      death of a joint tenant:  (1) Holder may, at Holder’s option, declare
      all the sums due under this Note to be immediately due and payable, and (2)
      if
      the sale or transfer involves substantially all of the assets of Maker, the
      transferee shall be deemed to have assumed all of the obligations of Maker
      under
      this Note.





This
      Note is unsecured.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has
      signed his Note effective as of the date first above written.





PARK-PREMIER
      MINING
      COMPANY





By:     /s/
      Robert W. Dunlap


Its:     President


Description:  Unreimbursed
      expenses
#### Maus *v.*The Auglaize National Bank of Wapakoneta.

(No. 22894

Decided March 16, 1932.)

*35
      *Messrs. Meredith £ Meredith*and *Mr. Kent W. Hughes,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Anderson £ Lusk,*for defendant in error.

By the Court.

The plaintiff in error complains of the deficiency judgment recovered against him by the Auglaize National Bank in the foreclosure proceeding, on the theory that there is no evidence in the record to support such judgment.

The question then is presented whether there is some evidence in the record to support the judgments of the courts below, this court not being authorized to weigh the evidence but authorized to examine the record to see whether there is any evidence to support the aforesaid judgment.

The written agreement heretofore set forth between Baechler and Maus reciting, as it does, “ C. B. Baechler has this day sold to H. P. Maus one hundred and sixty-six (166) acres of land located in Auglaize county, Ohio,” and that Maus agrees to “assume mortgage indebtedness in the sum of $12,000.00,” is not the only evidence indicating ownership of Maus and his liability in the premises. The facts and circumstances surrounding the parties, the inspection of the farm by Maus and his agent, the dominance of Maus in the entire transaction, such as payment of interest on both the first and second mortgages after the delivery of the deed, the payment by Maus of the taxes on the farm, the. assumption agreement with the Virginian Joint-Stock Land Bank, which specifically states that H. P. Maus “has purchased said tract or parcel of land in said mortgage more particularly bounded and described,” etc., the looking after the running of the farm, the ownership of the chattels on the farm, the taking of the proceeds of said farm, his stock in the Page Organ Company transferred to Baechler as a part of the consideration for the farm and representing the payment of Baechler’s equity over and above *36the Land Bank mortgage and the Auglaize National Bank mortgage; Baechler receiving no money, the improbability of Baechler selling his interest in his farm for the payment of the first mortgage and the seventy-five shares of the Page Organ Company stock, leaving himself liable on the Auglaize National Bank mortgage; the reluctance of Maus to admit the signing of the written agreement- — these and other facts are evidence indicating the ownership of Maus, which, together with the conduct of the parties, the circumstances surrounding them, viewed from the advantage which the trial court had of observing the parties and hearing their testimony, their manner of testifying, all taken together afford some evidence which tends to support the judgment of the trial court in finding a promise of assumption of the mortgage of the Auglaize National Bank on the part of H. P. Maus.

The judgments of the court of common pleas and of the Court of Appeals are therefore affirmed.

*Judgments affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Day, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.

Jones, J., not participating.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Arotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Paup, Vice President – Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that
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 Company.











By:   /s/ Thomas J.
Paup


Thomas J.
Paup,


Vice
President – Finance and CFO


(Chief
Financial Officer)





Date:  March
31, 2010
LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT.

#### In the Matter of House Resolution Relating to Constitutionality of Legislation Redistricting the State for Legislative Purposes.

For the provision of the constitution involved in this question, and an account of the previous legislation which affects it, see the case immediately following this.

Per Curiam.

The question submitted is, “ Can a bill be passed at this session of the general assembly for a legislative apportionment of this state which will not be in conflict with section 15, article 5, of the state constitution? ”

The statutes containing no act adopted since the year 1885, relative to the matter submitted, we answer the question propounded affirmatively.
#### The State, ex rel. Stuckenberg, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio.

(No. 23257

Decided April 6, 1932.)

*Mr. Jokn A. Scanlon,*for relator.

*Mr. Gilbert Beftman,*attorney general, and *Mr. R. R. Zurmekly,*for respondent.

The court find that this defendant, the Industrial Commission of Ohio, had incorporated into the transcript filed in the court of common pleas of Hamilton *652county, Ohio, in the case of *Nora Stuckenberg*v. *Industrial Commission of*Ohio, No. A-9253, all the testimony, the evidence, the records and papers which were before it at the original hearing and previous to the filing of the application for rehearing, and that by reason thereof the same are available for use in said case in the court of common pleas as evidence, subject to the competency of the entire file or parts thereof as may be offered by the plaintiff, to be passed upon by the trial judge; and that, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to a writ of mandamus as prayed for, and the petition is accordingly dismissed at the cost of relator.

*Petition dismissed.*

Jones, Matthias, Ahlen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.