alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6496

PAUL M. DELOATCH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; RICK JACKSON,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-267-2)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 2, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul M. Deloatch, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Norwood League, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Generally, dismissals without prejudice are not appealable,

unless no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the

plaintiff's case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union

392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We find that Appellant

may be able to save this action through amendment.

The district court, accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation, dismissed Appellant's petition because it contained

exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,

519 (1982). Appellant may either exhaust all the claims in the

petition and then refile his petition, or he may amend his petition

by deleting any unexhausted claims and resubmitting the amended

petition to the district court. Id. Thus, while the district court

order here might be read to allow resubmission only after exhaustion, it appears that the order merely did not enumerate specifically all of Appellant's options.

Because the order which Appellant seeks to appeal is not an

appealable final order, see Domino Sugar Corp., 10 F.3d at 1066-67,

we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

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.

DISMISSED
**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 Red Metal Resources Ltd. (the “**Company**”) on Form 20-F for the period ended January 31, 2023 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, Joao (John) da Costa, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.
#### Curtis W. TATUM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. POLICE JURY OF SABINE PARISH.

No. 6061.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 4, 1940.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1940.

Edwin M. Fraser, 'R. A. Fraser, and J. S. Pickett, all of Many, for appellant. ,

J. Reuel Boone and Olin D. Moore, both of Many, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

The appeal in this case was consolidated here for argument with that of No. 6060, styled Charley B. McCollister v. Police Jury of Sabine Parish, Louisiana, 197 So-303.

The pleadings, the facts and the issues in this case are identical with those in case No. 6060, referred to above; and, for the reasons assigned therein, the judgment herein, appealed from, is annulled, avoided and reversed. Plaintiff’s demand is rejected and his suit dismissed at his cost.

On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment herein was rendered on April 4th and copy thereof on that date mailed to-counsel of each side. Application for rehearing was filed on April 19th.

For the reasons assigned in companion case, 197 So. 303, the application for rehearing herein is denied.
### ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA # 06-14-00050-CR OFFENSE: 32.21 Chad Ray Bennettv.The State of 

### STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Hunt 

# ¥*/-/r

COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed TRIAL COURT: 354th District Court DATE: 3/12/15 Publish: No TC CASE #: 29,345



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Chad Ray Bennettv.The St STYLE: Texas ate of Petition 

# CCA#: Ti/~/5 PRO S£. FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: CCA Disposition: DATE: 

# f?e-fused JUDGE: 

# DATE: OSt/3/30/y JUDGE: /£a U>tsuc*~^ SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: ELECTRONIC RECORD
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6075

KANE EDWARD WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT SMITH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-407-5-H(2)) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 5, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kane Edward Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Stephen Hicks, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kane Edward Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wilson v. Smith , No. CA-97-407-5-H(2) (E.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.<TABLE> <S> <C><ARTICLE>    UT<LEGEND>    PEOPLES ENERGY CORPORATIONTHE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTSOF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASHFLOWS, AND QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.<MULTIPLIER>    1,000<CURRENCY>    U.S.DOLLARS<S>                                                      <C><PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS<PERIOD-START>                                   Oct-01-1999<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Sep-30-2000<PERIOD-END>                                     Jun-30-2000<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                            1<BOOK-VALUE>                                        PER-BOOK<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                          1,595,948<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          154,805<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                               558,395<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                              29,872<OTHER-ASSETS>                                        68,056<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     2,407,076<COMMON>                                             291,242<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                                  3<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                  517,056<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                       808,301<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0<PREFERRED>                                                0<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                 319,711<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                         0<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  0<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       352,000<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        202,000<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                  0<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                                0<LEASES-CURRENT>                                           0<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                       725,064<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                      2,407,076<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          1,198,395<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                  55,051<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         1,019,826<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         1,019,826<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                              178,569<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                    12,635<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                       191,204<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,303<NET-INCOME>                                          97,850<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                                0<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                         97,850<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                              52,550<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                             26,096<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                                60,576<EPS-BASIC>                                             2.76<EPS-DILUTED>                                           2.76</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31**

** **

**LONG BEACH SECURITIES CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Douglas A. Potolsky, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to befiled in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10–K of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain anyuntrue 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to beprovided under Form 10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance with Servicing Criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with Servicing Criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Deutsche BankNational Trust Company.

 

Dated:  March 15, 2007

 

LONG BEACH SECURITIES CORP.

 

 

By:   /s/ Douglas A. Potolsky  _______Name:  Douglas A. PotolskyTitle:    Senior Vice President
H. R. 632

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used by the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. JUST COMPENSATION.

(a) AMENDMENT.—Section 1498(a) of title 28, United States

Code, is amended by adding at the end of the first paragraph

the following: ‘‘Reasonable and entire compensation shall include

the owner’s reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert

witnesses and attorneys, in pursuing the action if the owner is

an independent inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity

that had no more than 500 employees at any time during the

5-year period preceding the use or manufacture of the patented

invention by or for the United States. Nothwithstanding the preceding sentences, unless the action has been pending for more than

10 years from the time of filing to the time that the owner applies

for such costs and fees, reasonable and entire compensation shall

not include such costs and fees if the court finds that the position

of the United States was substantially justified or that special

circumstances make an award unjust.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)

shall apply to actions under section 1498(a) of title 28, United

States Code, that are pending on, or brought on or after, the

date of the enactment of this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 10.2


 


Amendment to Compensation Matters Agreement of Dieter Wunderlich







            Amendment to Compensation Matters Agreement (this "Amendment"), made as of March 4, 2014 by and between Vishay Electronic GmbH, a German company ("Vishay Electronic"), and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Vishay"), and DIETER WUNDERLICH ("Executive") (collectively the "Parties").







            WHEREAS, Executive is employed by Vishay Electronic and is a Party to that certain Compensation Matters Agreement made between the Parties as of November 11, 2011 (the "Compensation Matters Agreement");







            WHEREAS, Vishay Electronic and Executive may amend the Compensation Matters Agreement by mutual agreement in writing; and







             WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Compensation Matters Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.







            NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:







1.            Paragraph one of the Compensation Matters Agreement is hereby amended by replacing "75%" in the second and third sentences with "100%", and "2012" in the third sentence with "2014".







2.            The amendments to the Compensation Matters Agreement made by paragraph 1 of this Amendment shall be effective as of March 4, 2014.







3.            Except as set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Compensation Matters Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.







4.            This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.







            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf as of the date first above written.







VISHAY ELECTRONIC GMBH







By: /s/ Werner Gebhardt


Name: Werner Gebhardt


Title: Managing Director







Date: April 23, 2014







[Executive's signature on next page]













/s/ Dieter Wunderlich


Dieter Wunderlich







Date: April 23, 2014
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this report on Form 10-Q for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Steven J. Johnston, the chairman, president, and chief executive officer, and Michael J. Sewell, the chief financial officer, of Cincinnati Financial Corporation each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:


1. the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and


2. the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cincinnati Financial Corporation.





Date: October 26, 2020





/S/ Steven J. JohnstonSteven J. Johnston, FCAS, MAAA, CFA, CERAChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/S/ Michael J. SewellMichael J. Sewell, CPAChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer(Principal Accounting Officer)
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADDEDBY**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**               **In connection with the Annual Report of Fox ChaseBancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), theundersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | /s/ Thomas M. Petro                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Thomas M. Petro                        |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                                   |
|   | /s/ Jerry D. Holbrook                  |
|   | Jerry D. Holbrook                      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  and Secretary |

 

Date: March 12,2008

 

 

----
#### THORNTHWAITE et al. v. THOMAS et ux.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

March 12, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 5,' 1954.

Hugh L. McArthur, Tampa, for appellants.

Harry M. Hobbs, Tampa, and Scott Register, Bradenton, for appellees.

TERRELL, Justice.

Appellees-cross-appellants brought suit in equity against appellants to rescind a contract for the sale of real estate which included a home, a going business and the land, on. which • they were located. The complaint also prayed for return of $9,000, being the initial payment on the real estate, The suit was brought after appellees had .occupied the home and conducted the business for, two weeks. Fraud and misrepresentation were, .basis of the, relief prayed for.

On conclusion of the trial the.chancellor found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their charges and' that- appellants were entitled to recover from appellees-cross-appellants $3,500, which amount included a real -estate broker’s commission -in the sum of $850 and an attorney’s fee in- the sum .of - $1,250, the real estate broker’s commission to remain in the registry of the.-court pending further orders. We are confronted with an appeal and a cross-appeal from the decree.

Several questions are urged for reversal but most of them are based on factual considerations on which we. find no basis for reversal of the chancellor. As to the attorney’s fees and the real, estate broker’s commission, we. find no contract, statute or other basis in the record for the allowance of such fees.

It necessarily follows that as to attorney’s fees and the real estate broker’s commission, the judgment appealed from is reversed. In all other respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed as to th'e appeal and- the cross-appeal.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part

' RÓBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
#### HENRY v. HENDERSON et al.

No. 6177.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 29, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1941.

Heard & Heard, of Monroe, for appellant.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellees.

TALIAFERRO, judge.

This is a companion suit to No. 6178 on the docket of this court, styled, Marvin Phillips et al. v. Mrs. Lucille Anderson Henderson et al., 200 So. 192, decided today. The cases were consolidated for trial in the lower court and here.

Plaintiff was a guest passenger in Mrs. Henderson’s car when the accident alleged upon occurred. He sustained physical injuries and sues Mrs. Henderson, her insurer, and Mrs. Audrey Miller for damages, for loss of earnings and for physician’s bill and cost of X-ray picture.

The pleadings and issues of this case are identical with those in suit No. 6178.

Plaintiff was awarded judgment against Mrs. Miller alone for $355 to compensate him for pain and suffering and to reimburse expenses incurred in treating his injuries. He appealed and here complains of the quantum and of the rejection of his demand against Mrs. Henderson and her insurer.

Plaintiff was carried to Dr. Gallaspy in the City of Monroe immediately after the accident. Fie was then experiencing considerable pain. X-ray pictures disclosed a fracture of the right fifth rib with slight displacement and also a fracture of the ninth rib. These injuries produced severe *196pain and disabled him to work for eight weeks. During this period he was under the watchcare of his physician and was administered appropriate treatment.

For pain and suffering the lower court allowed only $300. This is obviously inadequate. An award of $700 will be more nearly in keeping with the jurisprudence covering cases of this and similar character. Crozat v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., 145 So. 60; Andrews v. Foster et al., La.App., 170 So. 563; Mason v. Herrin Transfer & Warehouse Company, Inc., La.App., 168 So. 331.

The lower court specifically rejected plaintiff’s demand for loss of income. His counsel in brief admits that the testimony offered to establish this loss is vague. This admission is well supported by the record. The testimony adduced on this phase of the demand is not sufficiently specific to serve as a basis of a judgment.

For the reasons herein assigned, and for those assigned in said suit No. 6178, the judgment appealed from is amended by increasing the amount thereof to $755, and as thus amended, said judgment is affirmed with costs.
Exhibit 99(b)



PEOPLES ENERGY CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

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 combined Quarterly Report of Peoples Energy Corporation (the "Company"), The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company ("Peoples Gas") and North Shore Gas Company ("North Shore Gas") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas A. Nardi, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas.



|/s/ THOMAS A. NARDI |  |  | February 11, 2003
|------------------- |  |  | -----------------
|                    |  |  | Date             

Thomas A. Nardi
Senior Vice President, 
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
Peoples Energy Corporation



|/s/ THOMAS A. NARDI |  |  | February 11, 2003
|------------------- |  |  | -----------------
|                    |  |  | Date             

Thomas A. Nardi
Senior Vice President, 
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company



|/s/ THOMAS A. NARDI |  |  | February 11, 2003
|------------------- |  |  | -----------------
|                    |  |  | Date             

Thomas A. Nardi
Senior Vice President, 
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
North Shore Gas Company