alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles T. KNAPP, Appellant, v. Henry H. TIMKEN, Appellee.

No. 7343.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 9, 1937.

Maxwell V. Beghtol, of Lincoln, Neb., and Davies & Eshner, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Lynch, Day, Pontius & Lynch, of Canton, Ohio, and Tolies, Hogsett *&*Ginn, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.

Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The court being of opinion that no error was committed by the trial court in admitting or rejecting evidence offered on the hearing or in directing the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, it is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T SH A N E D . W I LLI S, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. C I T Y O F S A L E M , O R E G O N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 35314 D. C . No . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 5 1 0 - HA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nc e rL . H a gge rty , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ay15, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , G R A B E R , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O re g o n state p riso n erS h an e D . W il li s ap p ea ls p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng a s t i m e - ba rr e d hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 c om pl a i nta l l e gi ng c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i ons a r i s i ng f r om atr a f

f i c s t op. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28



# FI LED MA Y25 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 35314 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , D o u g la s v . N o e lle , 5 6 7 F .3 d1 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) , a n dw e a f

f irm . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dW illis ’s a c tio n a s tim e - b arr e d . See O r. R ev. S t at . § 1 2. 11 0(1) (tw o-ye arst atut e of l i m i t at i on s f or pers on ali nj ury c l ai m s) ; D ouglas , 5 6 7 F .3 dat 1 1 0 9 (f o r § 1 9 8 3 claim s, co u rts ap p ly th e f o ru m state’s s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s f

o rp e r s o n a l in

ju ryc la im s ) ; s e e a ls o W a lla c e v . Ka to , 549 U . S . 384, 391 ( 2007) ( “ T he c aus e of a c t i on a c c rue s e ve n though the f ul l e xt e ntof the i nj uryi s notthe n know n orpr e di c t abl e . ” ( c i t a t i on and i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed)) . W i l l i s’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s, i ncl ud i ng tho se cont ai ned i n h i s l ett er re ce i ved o n A ug ust29 , 20 11 , ar e unp er suas i ve. AF F I RME D.
##### 



SCHEDULE I
TO ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
 MITEL NETWORKS CORPORATION
CORPORATION MITEL NETWORKS
 3.
    
    The articles of the above-named corporation are amended as follows:
 (a)
    
    to delete the authorized and unissued Class A Convertible Preferred Shares,
including the Class A Convertible Preferred Shares, Series 1, and all of the rights,
privileges, restrictions and conditions attaching to such shares, and(b)
    
    to delete the authorized and unissued Class B Convertible Preferred Shares,
including the Class B Convertible Preferred Shares, Series 1, and all of the rights,
privileges, restrictions and conditions attaching to such shares.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10813

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Claudia P. Rodriguez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:21-CR-516-2

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Claudia P. Rodriguez has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Rodriguez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 12, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10813 Document: 00516818454 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023
No. 22-10813

2

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-10813 Document: 00516818454 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2023
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

GERALD A. KELLOGG, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NIKE, INC. and NIKE USA, INC., Defendants-Cross Appellants.

____________________
2010-1173, -1174, -1195, -1196

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in No. 07-CV-0070, Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ARK J. P ETERSON , Stinson Morrison Hecker, LLP, of Omaha, Nebraska, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was N ORA M. K ANE . Of counsel on the brief were G. T HOMAS W ILLIAMS and M ARY C. B ONNEMA , McGarry Bair PC, of Grand Rapids, Michigan.

B. T RENT W EBB , Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued for defendants-cross appellants. With him on the brief were B ART A. S TARR , J ONATHAN N. Z ERGER and A NGEL D. M ITCHELL

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (R ADER , Chief Judge, N EWMAN , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 11, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6400]

The Fine Arts Committee of the Department of State will meet on November 13, 2008 at 11 a.m. in the Henry Clay Room of the Harry S. Truman Building, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will last until approximately 12 p.m. and is open to the public.

The agenda for the committee meeting will include a summary of the work of the Fine Arts Office since its last meeting on April 25, 2008 and the announcement of gifts and loans of furnishings as well as financial contributions from January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2008.

                    Public access to the Department of State is strictly controlled and space is limited. Members of the public wishing to take part in the meeting should telephone the Fine Arts Office at (202) 647-1990 or send an e-mail to                     *BurdenVK@State.gov*                     by November 6 to make arrangements to enter the building. The public may take part in                           ( print page 61187)                        the discussion as long as time permits and at the discretion of the chairman.                

Dated: October 7, 2008.

Marcee Craighill,

Secretary, Fine Arts Committee, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-24516 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-35-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7361

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDERICK KEITH SINGLETON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-179-A) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 7, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Keith Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clifford Chesnut, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Singleton appeals the district court’s order denying his Rule 41(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s finding that Singleton did not lawfully possess the $8,400 and the finding that Dunbar Armored, Inc. was entitled to the money. See United States v. Singleton , No. CR-95-179-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
AMENDED
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 
 Exhibit 10.10
  Agreement
entered into as of this 6 th day of
January 2004, between Moshe Citronowicz ("Employee") and Bovie Medical
Corporation, ("Employer")
 
 **WHEREAS** , the
parties have heretofore entered into an Employment Agreement (the "Agreement")
dated February 1, 2000, as the same has been amended pursuant to the Board
Resolutions dated January 23, 2002 and January 6, 2004; and
  **WHEREAS** , the
parties are desirous of memorializing the effect of the aforementioned
resolutions and further amending said Agreement on the terms hereinafter set
forth.
 
 **NOW
THEREFORE** , in
consideration of the premises and covenants herein contained,
  **IT
IS HEREBY AGREED** :
  1.  Paragraph
3 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
  TERM: The
initial term of employment under this Agreement shall be effective as of the
1 st day of
February, 2000, and shall continue until January 31, 2009 or until terminated as
hereinafter provided. After January 31, 2009 the term of this Agreement shall be
automatically extended for continuous terms of one year each unless the Employer
provides the Employee with written notice of termination at least nine months
prior to the date the Employer plans to terminate.
  2.  Except as
amended hereby, the Agreement is hereby ratified and approved.
  
  **IN
WITNESS WHEREOF** the
parties have set forth their signatures this___ day of July, 2004.
 
 BOVIE
MEDICAL CORPORATION
 By: /s/
Andrew Makrides, President
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-89] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-89 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

      ( print page 61817)          ( print page 61818)          ( print page 61819)          ( print page 61820)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M 

[FR Doc. E8-24456 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Exhibit 32.1

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002



I, Leonard A. Rosenbaum,  President and Chief Executive Officer of CVD Equipment
Corporation,  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge,
the  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 of CVD
Equipment  Corporation  (the "Form 10-QSB") 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 Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of CVD Equipment
Corporation.


Dated: August 6, 2007             /s/   Leonard A. Rosenbaum
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Leonard A. Rosenbaum
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 15.1 May 15, 2017 Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549-7561 United States of America Dear Sirs/Madam: We have read Item 16F of Companhia de Saneamento Básico do Estado de São Paulo–SABESP’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016, dated May 15, 2017 (the “Annual Report”), and have the following comments: 1.

   

   We agree with the statements made in the paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12 of Item 16F of the Annual Report.
  2.

   

   We disagree with the statements made in the paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Item 16F of the Annual Report.
  3.

   

   We have no basis on which to agree or disagree with the statements made in the paragraphs 13 and 14 of Item 16F of the Annual Report.
  Yours truly, /s/ DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU Auditores Independentes


Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee ("DTTL"), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as "Deloitte Global") does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms.

   

   Deloitte provides audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk management, tax and relates services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. Deloitte serves four out of five Fortune Global 500® companies through a globally connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries bringing world-class capabilities, insights, and high-quality service to address clients’ most complex business challenges. To learn more about how Deloitte’s approximately 225,000 professionals make an impact that matters, please connect with us on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter.

   

   ©2017Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. All rights reserved.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308,CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 OFFICIAL BUS STATE OF TEXAS PEWALTY FOR 

### 1/30/2015 PR8VATEUSE • '• gg WS^gXEi 0002003152 feb 09 "201-5 

## ANTHONY, CARL DEWAYNE Tr. (^Nof^GRWljO MAILEDFRO|w.vvR3g2,8^9,-'01 On this day, the application for 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus has been received ; and presented to the Court. CARL DEWAYNE ANTHONY ELLIS I UNIT - TDC # 1820527 1697 FM 980 HUNTSVILLE, TX 77343 

# .%&>• c ^ ^EESmS? P1TNEV BOWES 02 1R 0002003152 Abel Acosta, Clerk

UTF

•43B 77320 

### || 1 ft

i. .i,,. ,i |r|,,11f I > f

|,,

ff

1 yi1 i.j

1.1,.,J11|i,. 1,., r.., i |f

1 f

i f
Exhibit
23.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-121427) pertaining to the Primus Guaranty,
Ltd. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, 2004 Stock Incentive Plan and Written
Compensation Agreements with Certain Employees of Primus Guaranty, Ltd.
of our report dated February 25, 2005, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Primus Guaranty, Ltd. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

New York, New
YorkMarch 21, 2005

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

# ** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Natrol, Inc. (the “Company”) for the periodended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on thedate listed below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

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

 

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

 

This Certification is providedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and Item 601(b)(32) of RegulationS-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and shall not bedeemed part of the Report or “filed” for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall itbe deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

 
| Date: May  17, 2004 |                                                         |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   /s/  Elliott Balbert                             |   |
|                |   Elliott  Balbert                                 |
|                |   President,  Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |
|                |   (Principal  Executive Officer)                   |

 

----
#### BARNES v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### In the Matter of Lloyd COLE, Bankrupt. The UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lloyd COLE, Appellee.

No. 7423.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1937.

C. Eugene Smith, of Columbus, Ohio, and O. Raudabaugh, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

Orton A. Reid, of Columbus, Ohio, and Elmer McClain, of Lima, Ohio, for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Circuit Judge, and RAYMOND and LEDERLE, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record and the briefs and oral argument of counsel, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings according to law.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02554-RM-MEH

RONALD M. COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZAVISLAN, (DRDC) Warden (CDOC), and

REAUX (DRDC) Captain (CDOC),

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 26, 2013.

As noted with Plaintiff’s previously filed motion to compel, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Discovery [filed December 24, 2013; docket #135] is denied without prejudice for failure to

comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1, which states:

A motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 or 37 directed to an interrogatory, request, and

response under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34 or 36 shall set forth either in the text of the

motion or in an exhibit to the motion the specific interrogatory, request or

response to which the motion is directed.

(emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff attached only what appears to be a May 16, 2013 cover letter for

his “Request for Production of Documents, Answers to First Set of Interrogatories, Request for

Admissions.” See docket #135 at 3. Typically, parties filing motions to compel attach a copy of the

opponent’s written response to the discovery request, which informs the Court of the request,

response and any objections made.

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 137 Filed 12/26/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**684 CAF 10-02092** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MINDY L. HOWARD, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEVE W. HOWARD, RESPONDENT, AND SHIRLEY MCLOUGHLIN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

AMDURSKY, PELKY, FENNELL & WALLEN, P.C., OSWEGO (COURTNEY S. RADICK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

STEPHANIE N. DAVIS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, OSWEGO, FOR APRIL H.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oswego County (Kimberly M. Seager, J.), entered September 17, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition for modification of custody.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is reinstated and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Oswego County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order dismissing her pro se petition to modify an order of custody entered upon consent. That prior order, inter alia, awarded the mother and respondent grandmother joint legal custody of the child and awarded the grandmother primary physical custody of the child. We agree with the mother that Family Court erred in dismissing her petition without first receiving a report from the Referee and providing the mother an opportunity to object to it ( see CPLR 4320 [b]; 22 NYCRR 202.44 [a]; see also Matter of Wilder v Wilder , 55 AD3d 1341). The record establishes that the Referee was authorized only to hear the matter and issue a report inasmuch as there is no evidence that the parties consented to referral to the Referee for a final determination on the petition ( see Wilder , 55 AD3d 1341). We further agree with the mother that the Referee’s failure to advise her of the right to counsel pursuant to Family Court Act § 262 (a) (v) constitutes reversible error ( see Matter of Arlene R. v Wynette G. , 37 AD3d 1044). “The deprivation of a party’s right to counsel guaranteed by [that] statute ‘requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position’ ” ( Matter of Collier v Norman , 69 AD3d 936, 937). We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the mother’s petition and remit the matter to Family**-2- 684 CAF 10-02092** 

Court for further proceedings on the petition.

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court