alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 16, 2011*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.11 Sector Discrepancies** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ERIC EMORY.

September 17, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 31, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-10565

Non-Argument Calendar

 

D. C. Docket No. 03-01065-CV-J-12-TEM

MS LIFE INSURANCE CO.,

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellee,

versus

DONNA J. BARFIELD,

Defendant-CounterClaimant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

 

(October 31, 2006)

Before DUBINA, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

In her notice of appeal, appellant Donna Barfield (“Barfield”) appeals the

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of MS Life Insurance

Company (“MS”), and third party-defendant Buddy Hutchinson, Inc., and that

portion of the district court’s order which denied Barfield’s motion for

continuance and for leave to amend.

We first observe, after reading Barfield’s amended initial brief, that she fails

to address the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of MS. Issues

not argued on appeal are deemed waived. See United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d

1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (discussing long-standing rule in this circuit that

issues not raised in a party’s initial brief on appeal are deemed waived), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 418 (2005). 

We review a district court’s denial of trial continuances for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Bowe, 221 F.3d 1183, 1189 (11th Cir. 2000). We also

review a district court’s denial of a motion for leave to amend a complaint for an

abuse of discretion. Carruthers v. BSA Advertising, Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1217-18

(11th Cir. 2004).

Assuming we have jurisdiction over the district court’s order filed on

October 18, 2005, which denied Barfield’s motion to continue and motion for
3

leave to amend, we affirm that order because we conclude from the record that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Fast Eddie Racing Stables, Inc.
File No. 0-19276

          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 Fast Eddie Racing Stables,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Glenn A. Little,  Chief  Executive and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date: October 4, 2004                         By: /s/ Glenn A. Little
      ---------------                            -------------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fast Eddie Racing  Stables,  Inc. and will be retained by Fast Eddie
Racing Stables,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### W. V. RIGGS and Mrs. W. V. Riggs, Appellants, v. KEENEWAY DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., a corporation of Nicholasville, Ky., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 1, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1973.

Robert L. Gullette, Nicholasville, for appellants.

William Miles Arvin, Nicholasville, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Special Commissioner MACAULEY SMITH,

Affirming*

*

 Opinion ordered not to be published.
NO. 07-03-0181-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JANUARY

29, 2004

______________________________ JOSE SANTOS CERVANTES, AP PELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 6 4TH DIST RICT COURT OF HALE COU NTY; NO. A14649-0209; H ONORABLE ROB ERT W. KINKAID, JR., JUD GE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Followi ng his convi ction for theft, appel lant Jose SantosCervantes was placed on community

supervision for five years. Upon the State’s motion to re v oke community supervis ion for

violati ons of the condition s thereof, the tri al court (1) conducted a hearing at which appel lant plead trueto the State’s all egations, ( 2) heard ev idence, and (3) granted1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2 the State’s moti on. A ppel lant was sentence d to t

wo y ears confi nement in a state jail fac ility. After appellatecounsel filed an Anders 1 brief and a motion to wi thdraw in dicating there is no meritorious error to present on appeal, appellant filed a pro se motion to dismiss his appeal. By his pro se motion, appellant represents that h e agrees with his counsel that this appeal is frivo lous and req uests that it be dismissed. No decision of this Court hav ing been delivered to date, the motion is granted and the appeal is dis missed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). Counsel’s motion to wi thdraw is also granted. No motion for rehearin g will b e entertained and our

mandate wil l issue forthw ith.

Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish
.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANGEL HERNANDEZ.

May 24, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ZABINO HERNANDEZ.

September 5, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Willie Levy, Plaintiff, *v.*States Marine Corporation et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 4, 1956.

*Golenboek & Komoroff*for plaintiff.

*Corydon B. Dunham*for States Marine Corporation of Delaware, defendant.

Walter A. Lynch, J.

Defendant States Marine Corporation of Delaware moves under rules 112, 113 and 114 of the "Buies of Civil Practice and subdivision 6 of section 49 of the Civil Practice Act to dismiss the amended complaint herein as to said defendant. The amended complaint alleges a cause of *635action based upon negligence and a cause of action arising out of breach of warranty of seaworthiness of the vessel.

The accident resulting in the injuries for which plaintiff seeks to recover damages is alleged to have occurred on March 7, 1953. The supplemental summons and amended complaint were served upon the defendant States Marine Corporation of Delaware on June 11, 1956, more than three years subsequent to the date of the occurrence of the alleged accident. An action to recover damages for an injury to property, or a personal injury, resulting from negligence must be commenced within three years after the cause of action has accrued (Civ. Prac. Act, § 49, subd. 6).

It appears that the defendant, States Marine Corporation of Delaware, is a foreign corporation engaged in interstate and foreign commerce and has maintained an office in the city of New York for the transaction of business for a period exceeding three years immediately preceding the commencement of this action, .with an officer present upon whom service might have been made. A foreign corporation exclusively engaged in interstate or foreign commerce is not required to obtain a certificate to do business within this State *(Ruby S. S. Corp.*v. *American Merchant Marine Ins. Co,,*224 App. Div. 531, affd. 250 N. Y. 573). Plaintiff’s contentions that the defendant States Marine Corporation of Delaware is required to file a certificate of doing business with the Secretary of State and that the Statute of Limitations has been tolled against the moving defendant under the provisions of section 19 of the Civil Practice Act are without merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted to the extent of dismissing the cause of action based on negligence, upon the ground that it was not commenced within the time required by law. The Statute of Limitations has not run as to the cause of action arising from the alleged breach of warranty of seaworthiness (Civ. Prac. Act, § 48, subds. 1, 3). Settle order.
[No. 6234.

Decided September 25, 1906.]

#### Walter G. Baker *et al., Respondents,*v. Washington Irrigation Company, *Appellants.*
      *1*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Yakima county, Rudkin, J., entered January 10, 1905.

Affirmed.

*E. T. Blaine*and *Ira P. Englehart,*for appellant.

*William B. Bridgman,*for respondents.

Reported in 86 Pac. 1125.

Per Curiam.

For the reasons assigned in *Atkinson v. Washington Irrigation Co., ante*p. 75, 86 Pac. 1123, the judgment in this case will he affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this registration statement of our report dated October 5, 1999
included in American TeleSource International, Inc.'s Form 10-K/A for the year
ended July 31, 1999 and to all references to our Firm included in this
registration statement.


                                    /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



     San Antonio, Texas
     August 24, 2000


                                      36
Exhibit 10.6

 

[Letter head of Leading Advice]

 

LETTER AGREEMENT

 

Date:May 19, 2014

 

To:           Xunlei Limited

7/F, Building 11, Shenzhen Software Park II

Shenzhen High-Tech Park, Shenzhen 518057

People’s Republic of China

 

Re:  2013 Share Incentive Plan and 2014 Share Incentive Plan

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Reference is made to the 2013 Share Incentive Plan dated November 18th, 2013 (the “2013 Plan”) and the 2014 Share Incentive Plan dated April 24, 2014 (the “2014 Plan”, together with the 2013 Plan, the “Plans”) of Xunlei Limited, an exempted company incorporated under the laws of of the Cayman Islands (the “Company”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall take the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plans.

 

We, being the Administrator and registered holder of the Shares underlying any Awards granted pursuant to the Plan, which we hold for and on behalf of the recipients of Awards (“Grantees”), hereby acknowledge and confirm the following:

 

(a)                                 We are acting as an agent on behalf of the Company to administer the Plans subject to the rights and obligations empowered by the Plans. We will execute any actions based on the instruction from the Company.

 

(b)                                 Before we exercise the voting power on behalf of the Grantees regarding their vested Shares pursuant to the rights provided under the relevant restricted shares award agreement, we shall solicit voting instructions from each Grantee and vote in accordance with such instructions.

 

Other than the acknowledgements stated above, the provisions of the Plans shall remain in full force and effect. The terms of this letter agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the Cayman Islands.

 











 

Yours faithfully,

For and on behalf of

 

	
LEADING ADVICE HOLDINGS LIMITED
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Shenglong Zou
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name: Shenglong Zou
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Acknowledged   and agreed by:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
XUNLEI LIMITED
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Shenglong Zou
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name: Shenglong Zou
    	
 
    
	
Title:
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID JOHN VITALE.

October 22, 1985.

This matter having come before the Court on defendant’s motion to reconsider the denial of certification;

And it appearing that although the defendant has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, a violation of *N.J.S.A.*2C:11-4b., the fact of death does not establish an independent aggravating circumstance under *N.J.S.A.*2C:44-1a, *see State v. Link,*197 *N.J.Super.*615 (App.Div.1984);

And it further appearing that the sentencing record before us does not reveal how the Court resolved the factual issue as to the aggravating factor number (1) under *N.J.S.A.*2C:44-1a as to the role of the defendant as actor and whether the offense occurred in a “especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner,” *see State v. Roth,*95 *N.J.*334, 363 (1984) (sentencing discretion must “be based upon findings of fact that are grounded in competent, reasonably credible evidence”);

*351And it further appearing that the sentencing transcript does not reveal an articulation of balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors required to establish the base or parole ineligibility terms under *N.J.S.A.*2C:43-6 and *N.J.S.A.*2C:44-1f,; 1

And it further appearing that defendant was not advised at the time of entry of a plea of his possible exposure to a period of parole ineligibility, as required by *State v. Kovack,*91 *N.J.*476, 484 (1982);

It is ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of denial of petition for certification is granted, certification is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to another judge of the vicinage to-be-selected by the Assignment Judge for resentencing and for that judge to set forth on the record the factual basis for determining the defendant's role in the death and to articulate the balancing of the aggravating and mitigating factors thus determined in accordance with the Code; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant is granted leave to withdraw his plea of guilty and may thereafter replead or proceed to trial.

Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, and STEIN join in this Order.

Justice POLLOCK dissents from the Order and would deny the motion.

1

 The recital that "a custodial term must be imposed to punish the defendant, to deter others and to protect the public" is relevant only to a sentence to crimes of the third or fourth degree, *NJ.S.A.*2C:44-1e. Manslaughter is a crime of the second degree, *N.J.S.A.*2C:11-4c., and a custodial sentence is presumed. *NJ.S.A.*2C:44-1f; *State v. Roth, 95 N.J.*334, 358 (1984).
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 7, 2001, except as to Note
21 for which the date is March 20, 2001, relating to the financial statements
and financial statement schedule, which appear in Prentiss Properties Trust's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.  We also
consent to the reference to us under the headings "Experts" in such Registration
Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Dallas, Texas
June 11, 2001
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50381

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jessica Marie Reyes Garcia,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-454-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jessica Marie Reyes Garcia 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). Reyes Garcia has filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50381 Document: 00516138338 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2021
No. 21-50381

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as 

well as Reyes Garcia’s response. We concur 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: 21-50381 Document: 00516138338 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2021
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
report (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement.

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Houston, Texas
December 18, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Meeting of the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Executive Panel will 
deliberate on the findings and proposed recommendations of the Navy 
Personnel Costs Subcommittee to the CNO. The meeting will consist of 
discussions of means by which the CNO can reduce the rising costs of 
employing military and civilian personnel.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 23, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 
3:45 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Boardroom at CNA, 4825 Mark 
Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Don Rauch, CNO Executive Panel, 
4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846, 703-681-4941.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Individuals or interested groups may submit 
written statements for consideration by the CNO Executive Panel at any 
time or in response to the agenda of a scheduled meeting. All requests 
must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address 
detailed below.
    If the written statement is in response to the agenda mentioned in 
this meeting notice then the statement, if it is to be considered by 
the Panel for this meeting, must be received at least five days prior 
to the meeting in question.
    The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions 
with the CNO Executive Panel Chairperson, and ensure they are provided 
to members of the CNO Executive Panel before the meeting that is the 
subject of this notice.
    To contact the Designated Federal Officer, write to Executive 
Director, CNO Executive Panel (N00K), 4825 Mark Center Drive, 2nd 
Floor, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.

    Dated: August 27, 2010.
D.J. Werner,
Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-21923 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 16(b)

                       [Arthur Andersen LLP Letterhead]



Mr. Theodore A. Babcock
Chief Financial Officer
TNP Enterprises, Inc.
2 Robbins Lane, Suite 201
Jericho, New York 11753

Mr. Manjit S. Cheema
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Texas-New Mexico Power Company
4100 International Plaza
Fort Worth, Texas 76109

May 2, 2000

Dear Mr. Babcock and Mr. Cheema:

This is to confirm that the client-auditor relationship between TNP Enterprises,
Inc. (Commission File Number 1-8847) and Texas-New Mexico Power Company
(Commission File Number 2-97230) and Arthur Andersen LLP has ceased.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Copy to:
SEC Office of the Chief Accountant
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7584

ELWOOD HOWARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-879)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 18, 1996

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elwood Howard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Howard v. Angelone, No. CA-95-879 (W.D. Va. Aug. 22, 1995).

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
#### SAMUEL A. JACOBS v. GREAT PACIFIC CENTURY CORPORATION.

January 22, 1986.

Petition for certification granted. (See 204 *N.J.Super.*605)
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ERNEST WOODARD.

November 12, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") by CapSource Financial,
Inc. ("Registrant"), I, Steven J. Kutcher, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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, as amended, and

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

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document 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 CapSource
Financial, Inc. and will be retained by CapSource Financial, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


       DATE: May 4, 2004                   By:  /s/ Steven J. Kutcher
                                                ------------------------------
                                           Name: Steven J. Kutcher
                                           Chief Financial Officer