alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David W. NOBLE, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Appellee.

No. 02-5323.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

July 21, 2003.

Before ROGERS, TATEL, and ROBERTS, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the briefs filed by the parties and the district court record, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 13, 2002, dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P 41(b) provides that a court may dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of the court. Such dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion. *See Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris,*901 F.2d 165, 167 (D.C.Cir.1990). Because disposition of claims on the merits is favored, however, the harsh sanction of dismissal for failure to prosecute is ordinarily limited to cases involving egregious conduct by particularly dilatory plaintiffs, after “less dire alternatives” have been tried without success. *See Trakas v. Quality Brands, Inc.,*759 F.2d 185, 186-87 (D.C.Cir.1985); *see also Bristol Petroleum,*901 F.2d at 167. In this case, there is no indication the court pursued other alternatives before resorting to the sanction of dismissal, and the court provided no notice to the pro se plaintiff that it was considering this course. *See Nita v. Connecticut Dep’t of Environmental Protection,*16 F.3d 482, 485 (2d Cir.1994) (dismissal improper where district court failed, inter alia, to give notice that it was considering dismissing for failure to prosecute); *Velazquez-Rivera v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.,*920 F.2d 1072, 1078 n. 9 (1st Cir.1990) (same).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing *en banc. See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
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 amended Annual Report of Arotech Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Avihai Shen, 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/ Avihai Shen
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Avihai Shen, Vice President -
                                           Finance and CFO
                                           (Chief Financial Officer)

Date:  November 29, 2004
Exhibit 18.1

March 16,
2009

Protection
One, Inc.
1035 N. 3rd, Suite 101
Lawrence, KS 66044

Dear
Sirs/Madams:

We
have audited the financial statements of Protection One, Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
2008, included in your Annual Report on Form 10-K to the Securities and Exchange Commission and have issued our report thereon dated March 16, 2009, which expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph concerning the change in the amortization method and estimated useful life used to account for the Multifamily Customer Accounts asset.
Note 2 to such financial statements contains a description of your adoption during the year ended December 31, 2008 of the change in the amortization method and estimated useful life
used to account for the Multifamily Customer Accounts asset. In our judgment, such change is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.

Yours
truly,

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Kansas
City, Missouri

---



QuickLinks
#### Arnold W. Schlichte v. John A. Donnegan.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-2108

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

FÉLIX ALBERTO CASTRO-DAVIS, a/k/a Belto, a/k/a Bertito,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 08-2109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

FÉLIX GABRIEL CASTRO-DAVIS, a/k/a Gaby,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 16, 2010, is amended

as follows:

On page 11, lines 13-14: delete "a violation of Fed. R. Crim.

P. 24(c)(4)(a),"

On page 14, line 4 of footnote 9: insert an "a" between "has

been" and "lack"

On page 19, line 6: substitute the comma after "area" with a

semi-colon

On page 27, line 3: insert a closing parenthesis after "(1st

Cir. 2003)."

On page 33, lines 3-4 of footnote 6: should read "On

October 28, 2009, just before oral argument, Gabriel ..."
<PAGE>

Exhibit 24

Caldwell, Becker, Dervin, Petrick& Co., L.L.P.
Certified Public Accountants

                              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                                 -----------------------------

The Board of Directors
Indigenous Global Development Corporation

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Form
10-KSB of Indigenous Global Development Corporation of our report dated December
7, 2002 relating to the financial statements appearing in this Form 10-KSB of
Indigenous Global Development Corporation, for the year ended June 30, 2003.

Caldwell, Becker, Dervin, Petrick& Co., L.L.P.
Woodland Hills, California
November 12, 2003

20750 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 140, Woodland Hills, CA 91364
(818) 704-1040    FAX (818) 704-5536
EXHIBIT 35.1

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

          GMACM HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2006-HE1 (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC , as servicer
(the "Servicer") pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 30, 2006
(as  amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),  among GMAC  Mortgage,  LLC
(formerly GMAC Mortgage Corporation),  as servicer, GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust
2006-HE1,  as the issuing  entity,  and JPMorgan Chase Bank,  N.A., as indenture
trustee,  does hereby  certify  that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material  respects  throughout
such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Executive Vice President
#### In the Matter of Caroline Rumpf.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Exhibit 4.46


  


	 	Buyer: CSUN Eurasia Energy Systems Industry and Trade Inc.
	 	 
	 	Address :Istanbul Industrial & Free Trade Zone Akif Kopuz St. No: T-10, B Block, 1st floor, Aydinli-Tuzla 34957 ISTANBULnlı-Tuzla 34957 İSTANBUL Turkey


 





 


Purchase Order


 


	PO No.:	Date:


 


Supplier :


CEEG (SHANGHAI) SOLAR SCIENCE


TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.


 


Address: NO.5999 GUANGFULIN ROAD, SONGJIANG, SHANGHAI, CHINA


Tel: 86 21 6025 9200


Fax: 86 21 6029 1900


Contact Person : hong.yu@chinasunergy.com


 


Attention:


 


We are pleased to submit the Purchase Order
for the attached Materials on the terms and conditions set forth below.


 


1 Specifications:


 


	Material Name	 	Material No.	 	Specification	 	Quantity	 	Unit	 	Total amount	 
	semi-finished solar module	 	550021	 	265-60P	 	10400	 	102.5	 	€	1,066,000.00	 
	semi-finished solar module	 	550021	 	250-60P	 	4160	 	102.5	 	€	426,400.00	 
	semi-finished solar module	 	550021	 	250-59P	 	3120	 	102.5	 	€	319,800.00	 
	semi-finished solar module	 	550021	 	250-60P	 	2080	 	102.5	 	€	213,200.00	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Total amount:	 	 	€	2,025,400.00	 



 




    	 



    	 



    

 


	2 Delivery date:	8/15/2013
	 	 
	3 Terms of Payment:	T/T 30days after received goods.
	 	 
	4 Shipment Term:	CIF Turkey, BY SEA
	 	 
	5 Specifications:	Csun's specifications as previous.
	 	 
	6 Broken Rate and Shortage:	Except forwarder problem, broken rate should be less than 0.3%, if over, supplier should be replaced them within 30 days.Supplier should replenish the shortage within 30 days after receiving the notice from buyer.
	 	 
	7 remarks:	This PO is made out in two originals, one original to be held by each party in witness thereof. Fax for this PO is same valid as original.


 


	For and on behalf of	 	For and on behalf of
	 	 	 
	CSUN Eurasia Energy	 	CEEG (SHANGHAI) SOLAR SCIENCE Systems TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD
	/s/ CSUN Eurasia Energy	 	/s/ CEEG (SHANGHAI) SOLAR SCIENCE Systems TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD
	 	 	 
	Date:	 	Date:
Exhibit 32.1 - President/CFO Certification (Section 906)

                        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 Political Calls, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, David Gallagher, President/CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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.

/s/ David Gallagher
----------------------------
    David Gallagher
    President/CFO


Date  August 2, 2007
      --------------


<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 Ma 

y 10, 2019

Order 

Clerk

May 10, 2019

157812(76)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 157812

v COA: 334024

Wayne CC: 15-010216-FC

ARTHUR LAROME JEMISON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the second motion of defendant-appellant to extend 

the time for filing his brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if 

submitted on or before June 19, 2019.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner,

v. ELOAH EL-EMANU-EL; DIRECTOR, No. 96-2345 OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (93-2347) Submitted: August 29, 1997 Decided: September 19, 1997 Before HALL, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Richard W. Scheiner, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Bernard G. Link, Lutherville, Maryland, for Respondents.

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

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Bethlehem Steel Corporation ("Bethlehem Steel") petitions forreview of a decision and order of the Benefits Review Board affirming an order of an Administrative Law Judge that awarded interest onbenefits granted to Eloah El-Emanu-El under the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act ("the Act"), 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950(West 1986 & Supp. 1997). Although Bethlehem Steel does not dispute the grant of benefits, it contends that the award of interest wasimproper. Based on precedent in this court and other circuits, we disagree. Consequently, we affirm. As Bethlehem Steel correctly notes, the Act is silent regarding interest payments on past due compensation awards. However, courts that have addressed this issue, including this court, have permitted such awards. See Sea-land Serv., Inc. v. Barry , 41 F.3d 903, 910-11 (3d Cir. 1994); Foundation Const., Inc. v. Director , 950 F.2d 621, 625 (9th Cir. 1991); Quave v. Progress Marine , 912 F.2d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 1990); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Director , 594 F.2d 986, 987 (4th Cir. 1979); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Graham , 573 F.2d 167, 171 (4th Cir. 1978). Assessment of interest in these situations is proper b ecause after the compensation is due but unpaid, the employer has use of money owed to the claimant. See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Director , 594 F.2d at 987. Accordingly, the assessment of interest on past due compensation was appropriate in this case. For this reason, we affirm the order of the Benefits Review Board.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
2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6155 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6155

     To prohibit United States contributions to the United Nations 
International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations High 
 Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the United Nations Relief and 
 Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2021

 Mr. Gooden of Texas (for himself, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Posey, Mr. Perry, 
   Mr. McKinley, Mr. Babin, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Gosar, Mrs. 
  Boebert, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Moore of Alabama, and Mr. Duncan) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To prohibit United States contributions to the United Nations 
International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations High 
 Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the United Nations Relief and 
 Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Tax Dollars for the United 
Nation's Immigration Invasion Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government 
may not make a contribution to the United Nations International 
Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations High Commissioner 
for Refugees (UNHCR), or the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for 
Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
                                 <all>
```
1The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3727

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Minnesota. 

Anthony Drake Barber, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 7, 1999

 Filed: April 13, 1999

___________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While Anthony Drake Barber was serving a period of supervised release, he

violated his release conditions and the district court1 revoked supervised release and

sentenced him to serve 14 months in prison. On appeal, Mr. Barber argues that the

district court erred by failing to consider the 5-to-11-month revocation imprisonment

range suggested under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a), p.s.

(1998). We affirm.
-2-

After a thorough review of the record--which includes the probation officer’s

letter notifying the district court of the revocation range recommended in Chapter 7--

we reject Mr. Barber’s argument and conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing him. See United States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir.

1995); United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Simon MUNOZ-MUNOZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10317.

D.C. No. CR-01-05282-REC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

**This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Simon Munoz-Munoz appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Munoz-Munoz contends that the district court erred in sentencing him when he was not given a downward departure based on an overstated criminal history. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s discretionary denial of Munoz-Munoz’s request for a downward departure. *United States v. Garcia-Garcia,*927 F.2d 489, 490-91 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF PARADYNE NETWORKS, INC.

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 Paradyne Networks, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sean E. Belanger, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



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



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/    Sean E. Belanger                        
|Sean E. Belanger                               
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 8, 2005



24
Exhibit
10.27


 





Extension
to Glenn S. Dickman promissory notes


 


Reference
is made to the Promissory note by and between the undersigned parties Glenn S. Dickman and Sundance Strategies, Inc. dated December
4, 2018, October 9, 2018 and July 25, 2018 and August 4, 2019.


 


Be
it known, that for good consideration the parties made the following additions or changes to the promissory notes as if contained
therein:


 


	 	1.	Due
    date for these notes will be extended to the earlier of November 30, 2021 or at the immediate time when the anticipated additional
    funds from the first bond or other proceeds are received.
	 	 	 
	 	2.	Sundance
    Strategies agrees to provide the lender 450,000 warrants for Sundance Strategies, Inc., shares at an exercise price of $.05
    per share. These warrants will have a 5 year available exercise window from the date of this extension. All other terms and
    conditions shall remain in full force and effect. The Company will have no obligation to register these shares.


 


	 	/s/
    Glenn S. Dickman 	 
	By:	Glenn
    S. Dickman	 


 


Date:
November 5, 2019


 


Sundance
Strategies, Inc.


 


	 	/s/ Randall
    F. Pearson	 
	By:	Randall
    F. Pearson, It’s President	 
	 	 	 
	Date:
    November 5, 2019