alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7891

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DANIEL JAY GREEAR , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Big Stone Gap

. James P. Jones, District Judge. ( 2:15

- cr - 00015

- JPJ

- PMS

- 10 )

Submitted : June 1, 2021 Decided: June 7, 2021

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion

. Daniel Jay Greear , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daniel Jay Greear appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir . 2021)

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Greear , No. 2:15

- cr - 00015

- JPJ

- PMS

- 10 (W.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2020). We dispense with oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3477

___________________________

Ted Hamilton

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

James Singleton

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

Joan McClean; Johnny Godbolt; Stephen Glover

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana

____________

 Submitted: April 13, 2017

Filed: April 18, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Ted Hamilton--a former pretrial detainee at the

Hempstead County Detention Center (HCDC)--claimed, inter alia, that Hempstead

County Sheriff James Singleton was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs by releasing him from HCDC with a leg monitor one day prior to a scheduled

surgery (release claim), and that Singleton was deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs by refusing to pay for his surgery after his release (refusal-to-pay

claim). The district court adversely decided the refusal-to-pay claim in a decision 1

addressing cross-motionsfor summary judgment, and the release claimwas adversely

decided by a jury. On appeal, Hamilton raises both of these claims, but his arguments

address only the adverse summary judgment decision.

After careful review ofthe record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we first

decline to review the disposition of the release claim. See Eaddy v. Yancey, 317 F.3d

914 (8th Cir. 2003) (declining to review denial of motion for partial summary after

full trial on merits). With regard to the refusal-to-pay claim, we conclude that Sheriff

Singleton was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, because the claim

was not based upon a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of

the alleged misconduct. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir.

2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo); Sisney v. Reisch, 674 F.3d

839, 844 (8th Cir. 2012) (two-prong qualified immunity inquiry examines (1) if

alleged facts make out violation of constitutional right, and (2) if constitutional right

violated was clearly established at time of defendant’s alleged misconduct); see also

Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2013) (this court can

affirm on any basis supported by record). The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017 of Wellness Center USA, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Douglas Samuelson, 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  Date: February 20, 2018/s/ Douglas SamuelsonName: Douglas SamuelsonTitle: Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
Exhibit
      32.1





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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Document Security Systems, Inc. (the *“Company* ”)
      on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the *“Report”* ),
      I,
      Patrick White, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of the 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.








Date:
      May
      12, 2008








s/Patrick
      White


Patrick
      White


Chief
      Executive Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Document Security Systems, Inc and will be retained by Document Security
      Systems, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.
July 3 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THOMAS DEWAYNE MORE LAND , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00035

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6158** 

MARVIN BLUNT , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. KUMA J. DEBOO, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Distri ct of West Virginia , at Elkins
. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 00073

- JPB

- DJJ )

Submitted : July 26, 2011 Decided: August 10, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN , and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marvin Blunt, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marvin Blunt , a District of Columbia C ode offender **,** seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 ( West 200 6 & Supp. 2011 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (200 6 )
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrati ng that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court de nies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independ ently reviewed the record and conclude that Blunt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presen ted in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
News United States Air Force
 DAF Senior leaders address the recent events at the CapitolPublished Jan. 13, 2021
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Robert Barnett
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Department of the Air Force senior leaders addressed the recent events at the U.S. Capitol in a letter to Airmen and Guardians encouraging them to exhibit conduct of the highest standard, Jan. 13.

Secretary of the Air Force**Barbara Barrett**, Air Force Chief of Staff **Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr.**, Chief of Space Operations **Gen. John W. Raymond**, Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force **JoAnne S. Bass** and Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Space Force **Chief Master Sgt. Roger A. Towberman** all signed the memorandum.

“We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” the letter reads. “On the 6th of January, the violent assault on our Nation’s Capitol was an attack on the foundation of our republic.”

The senior leaders reminded Airmen and Guardians to be guided by service core values while they continue to safeguard American ideals.

“Our actions build the sacred trust placed in the military by American citizens, but our actions can also erode our credibility as an institution,” the leaders said. “You are called to exhibit conduct of the highest standard. ... Remain steady and stay focused on your duties to the country. We are proud to stand beside you in service to our Nation.”

The full letter can be found**here**.

Additionally, in their roles as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Brown and Gen. Raymond also signed a message to the Joint Force along with the Chairman and fellow Joint Chiefs on Jan. 12 about the violent riot at the Capitol.

That letter can be found**here**.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Constitution 



Joint Force 



One Air Force 



values 



oath 



honor 



readiness 



Capitol 



U.S. Space Force 



Senior Leaders 



core values
EX-10.3(v)



 Exhibit 10.3(v) 

FIBROGEN, INC. 

AMENDMENT 

TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS 

THIS AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into and made effective on July 1, 2013 (the
“Amendment Effective Date”) by and between you, (“Optionee”) and FibroGen, Inc. (“Company”). This Amendment amends your Stock Option Agreements that govern the option grants listed on Exhibit A hereto (the
“Option Agreements”). Optionee and Company shall be referred to individually herein as a “Party”, and collectively as, the “Parties”. The Option Agreements, together with its corresponding Option Grant Notice, this
Amendment, and any previous Amendments thereof, are collectively referred to as the “Agreement”. 
  

	 	(1)	Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms and phrases used in this Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in their respective Option Agreements. 


 

	 	(2)	The following sentence is hereby added on to the end of Section 4(c) of each of the Option Agreements: 


Note that any option, or portion thereof, that is exercised through this “net exercise” method will be disqualified as an incentive
stock option and treated as a Nonstatutory Stock Option. 
  

	 	(3)	Section 8(a) of each of the Option Agreements is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 


“You may exercise the vested portion of your option (and the unvested portion of your option if permitted) during its Term, as set forth
in Section 7 hereof, by delivering a Notice of Exercise (in a form designated by the Company) together with payment of the exercise price, pursuant to Section 4 hereof, to the Secretary of the Company, or to such other person as the
Company may designate, during regular business hours, together with such additional documents as the Company may then require.” 
  

	 	(4)	This Amendment, together with the Option Agreements, as well as the Grant Notice and Plan referenced therein, contain the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as
otherwise provided herein, the Option Agreements has not been modified or amended and remains in full force and effect. All express or implied agreements and understandings, either oral or written, heretofore made with respect to subject matter
herein are expressly superseded in this Amendment. In the case of any conflict between the terms of the Amendment, the Option Agreements, the Grant Notice and/or the Plan, the terms of this Amendment shall control. 


 

					
		 	FIBROGEN, INC.
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Pat Cotroneo

			
		 		 	Pat Cotroneo
		 		 	Chief Financial Officer

 CONFIDENTIAL-2005
News United States Air Force
 Air Force saves Airmen time, no longer requires first year evaluationsPublished Jan. 4, 2018
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials announced Jan. 4, 2018, Enlisted Performance Reports are no longer required for regular Air Force Airmen in the grade of airman first class and below with less than 36 months’ Time-In-Service or Air Reserve Component Airmen below the grade of senior airman. 
This policy change supports Air Force senior leaders’ focus on revitalizing the squadron and saving Airmen time. It is intended to eliminate an unnecessary administrative requirement and empower frontline supervisors, raters and commanders to frequently engage with their Airmen face-to-face, said Lt. Gen. Gina Grosso, deputy chief of staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services. 
“While the Air Force values the contributions of all enlisted personnel, the requirement to document performance in a formal evaluation prior to the grade of senior airman is not necessary,” said Grosso. 
Instead, the Air Force has additional means available to document an Airman’s performance and to ensure he or she is meeting the training, developmental and experiential skills required to perform as professional Airmen.” 
Performance feedback and Airmen Comprehensive Assessments will still be required. Initial feedback sessions will occur within 60 days of raters taking over as supervisors and then every 180 days until an EPR occurs. 
The removal of EPRs prior to promotion to senior airman will allow Airmen more time to learn their primary skills and missions before their performance is documented on an EPR, Grosso said. 
All active-duty enlisted Airmen will receive their initial evaluation upon reaching their first March 31 Static Close-out Date after either promotion to senior airman, or after completion of a minimum of 36 months’ time-in-service, regardless of grade, whichever occurs first. All Air Force Reserve Component enlisted Airmen will receive initial evaluations upon the first March 31 SCOD as a senior airman. 
Commanders still retain the option to complete a Directed By Commander evaluation to document substandard performance for those airmen first class and below any time after an Airman reaches 20 months’ Time-In-Service. If a Directed By Commander evaluation is written, the Airman will receive a subsequent evaluation the following  March 31 SCOD. 
More information about the policy change is available at myPers.Air Force 



airman 1st class 



EPR 



evaluation 



enlisted performance report 



revitalization squadron 



saving time 



manpower 



static close out date 



MyPers
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

s0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139865

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139865 COA: 285384 Kent CC: 07-005355-FC MARCHRIS LEONARD BATES,

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 22, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTHONY VERONE.

Nov. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2830 

To permanently reauthorize the special diabetes programs for Indians. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. UDALL of New 

Mexico, Mr. BEGICH, and Mr. FRANKEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To permanently reauthorize the special diabetes programs 

for Indians. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAMS FOR INDIANS. 

4 Section 330C(c)(2)(C) of the Public Health Service 

5 Act (42 U.S.C. 254c–3(c)(2)(C)) is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘each of fiscal years 2004 through 2015’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year thereafter’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 86-2037.

#### Landers *v.*National Railroad Passenger Corporation et al.

C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, 484 U. S. 962.] Motion of respondents .to reconsider order denying motion for divided argument [484 U. S. 1055] denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2429 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2429

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 
    employer-provided educational assistance to employer payment of 
             interest on certain refinanced student loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2014

 Mr. Warner (for himself and Mr. Thune) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 
    employer-provided educational assistance to employer payment of 
             interest on certain refinanced student loans.

    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 ``Employer Participation in 
Refinancing Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON CERTAIN 
              REFINANCED STUDENT LOANS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 127(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
subparagraph (A), by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph 
(C), and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(B) the payment by an employer, whether paid to 
                the employee or to a lender, of any indebtedness of the 
                employee under a qualified education refinance loan or 
                any interest relating to such a loan, and''.
    (b) Qualified Education Refinance Loan.--Subsection (c) of section 
127 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
end the following new paragraph:
            ``(8) Qualified education refinance loan.--The term 
        `qualified education refinance loan' means any indebtedness 
        used solely to refinance a qualified education loan (within the 
        meaning of section 221(d)(1)) with respect to which the lender 
        offers the borrower protection in the event of unemployment or 
        financial hardship (as reasonably determined by the lender, 
        including periods of forbearance or career assistance).''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment; Denial of Double Benefit.--Paragraph (1) 
of section 221(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
inserting before the period the following: ``, or for which an 
exclusion is allowable under section 127 to the taxpayer's employer by 
reason of the payment by such employer of any indebtedness on a 
qualified education loan of the taxpayer''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to expenses paid after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1** 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

I, Matthew Dwyer, certify, as of the dates hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations at the dates and for the periods indicated.

 
| Date:  May 05, 2017 | */s/Matthew Dwyer*                                                    |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Matthew Dwyer                                                         |
|                          | President and Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6126]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
return to legislative session.

                          ____________________
```