alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before GASTON, HOUTZ, and MYERS Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Zachary R. HUNT Corporal (E

- 4 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 202100263

_________________________

Decided: 21 March 2022 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge : S tephen F. Keane Sentence adjudged 28 July 2021 by a general court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton , California, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 35 months , forfeiture of all pay and allowances , and a dishonorable discharge.
For Appellant: Commander Kyle C. Kneese , JAGC, USNUnited States v. Hunt , NMCCA No. 20 2100263 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________
PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 1 T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
#### Michael Wayne LONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-2314.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.

Decided Jan. 17, 2001.

Michael Wayne Long, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Wayne Long appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Long v. United States Marine Corps,*No. CA-00-716-9-08 (D.S.C. July 26, 2000). Long’s motions to transfer the case, to appoint counsel, and to hold brief in abeyance are denied. 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.*
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RAYMOND MICHAEL MATTSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1024 

[February 21, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; Palm 

Beach County, Samantha Schosberg-Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-

2017-CF-000602-AXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Anderson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. 

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. 

Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### A. *G.*Stitt, Sr., v. Barefoot & Kendall.

(No. 3307.)

Error from Montague County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 791. *Appeal bond from justice’s court; becomes an original paper in cause, when; case stated.*Stitts appealed to the county court from a judgment rendered against him in a justice’s court, in favor of Barefoot & Kendall. In the county court his appeal was dismissed because of supposed defects in his appeal bond. From the record it appears that the appeal bond was given, and approved by the justice of the peace within the time prescribed by law. It then became an original paper in the cause, which the statute required should be transmitted to the county court. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 1272.]

§ 792. *Same; justice’s transcript need not shoiv approval, etc., of.*As this appeal bond was approved and filed by the justice, and so indorsed by him, it was not essential to the appeal that the transcript from the justice’s court should, in addition to the indorsements on the bond, show that it had been approved and filed.

§ 793. *Same; condition of, held sufficient.*The bond is conditioned “shall payoff and satisfy the judgment which *shall*be rendered,” etc., whereas, the statute uses the language,.“ shall payoff and satisfy the judgment which *may*be rendered, ” etc. *Held:*It does not require either reason or authority to show that the condition of the bond, and that prescribed by the statute, are substan*700tially the same. In all respects the appeal bond was sufficient, and the court erred in dismissing the appeal.

April 29, 1885.

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTER  ENDED  MARCH 31,  1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE  TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FILED  WITH THE  SECURITIES  AND  EXCHANGE
COMMISSION.  EPS  PRIMARY  REPRESENTS  BASIC  NET LOSS PER  SHARE.  THE
COMPANY  HAS NOT  FILED A  RESTATED  FINANCIAL  DATA  SCHEDULE  FOR THE
PREVIOUSLY   REPORTED   PERIOD  BECAUSE  IT  HAD  NET  LOSSES  FOR  THE
THREE-MONTH  PERIOD  ENDED  MARCH  31,  1997,  AND  AMOUNTS  PREVIOUSLY
REPORTED FOR  EPS-PRIMARY AND EPS- DILUTED DO NOT DIFFER FROM CURRENTLY
REPORTED BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE, RESPECTIVELY.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                             25,455
<SECURITIES>                       31,674
<RECEIVABLES>                      11,367
<ALLOWANCES>                         (575)
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   68,905
<PP&E>                             10,128
<DEPRECIATION>                     (3,015)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     76,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              10,421
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           87,611
<OTHER-SE>                        (25,654)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       76,345
<SALES>                             7,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   10,079
<CGS>                                 187
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       1,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    8,718
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   (171)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (499)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (499)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                         (499)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.02)

        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.24

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                  PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION GROUP LTD., INC.
                        1998 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Professional Transportation Group
Ltd., Inc., a Georgia corporation (the "Company"), adopted the Professional
Transportation Group Ltd., Inc. 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Purchase
Plan"), on March 13, 1998, and recommended that it be approved by the
shareholders; and

         WHEREAS, the shareholders adopted the Purchase Plan at a meeting duly
called for such purpose on May 22, 1998; and

         WHEREAS, the purpose of the Purchase Plan is to advance the interests
of the Company, its subsidiaries and its shareholders by affording the employee
of the Company an opportunity to acquire or increase their proprietary interests
in the Company; and

         WHEREAS, on December 21, 1998, the Board of Directors approved the
following amendments to the Purchase Plan;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Purchase Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1.       Defined Terms. Initially capitalized terms used in this
Amendment,

         which are not otherwise defined by this Amendment, are used with the
         same meaning ascribed to such terms in the Purchase Plan.

         2.       Amendments.

                  a.       The first sentence of Section 2(q) of the Purchase
                           Plan is amended to read as follows:

                  "Offering Period" shall mean each three month period
                  commencing January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 and ending
                  on March 31, June 30, September 31, and December 31,
                  respectively, during the term of the Plan, and except that the
                  Committee shall have the period to change the duration of the
                  Offering Periods; however, no option granted under the Plan
                  shall be exercisable more than twenty-seven (27) months from
                  its date of grant.

                  3.       Effectiveness. This Amendment shall become effective
on the date provided below.

                  4.       Approval. Except as hereinabove amended and modified,
the Purchase Plan is approved, ratified and affirmed without further
modification or amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be
executed as of December 21, 1998, in accordance with the authority provided by
the Board of Directors.

                                    PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION GROUP
                                    LTD., INC.



                                      By:  /s/ Dennis A. Bakal                
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                         Name: Dennis A. Bakal
                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       7,328,502
<SECURITIES>                                16,784,345
<RECEIVABLES>                                  521,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,344,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,241,294
<PP&E>                                       4,885,239
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,557,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,130,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,264,305
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       134,071
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,732,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,130,450
<SALES>                                      3,891,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,067,324
<CGS>                                        4,559,521
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,559,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,384,842
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (16,877,039)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (16,877,039)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (16,877,039)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.52)


</TABLE>
#### William CLAIRVIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-725.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 4, 2011.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 2011.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Rebecca M. Becker, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Morton v. State,*689 So.2d 259, 264 (Fla.1997), *receded from in part on other grounds, Rodriguez v. State,*753 So.2d 29, 47 (Fla.2000) (where witness gives both favorable and unfavorable testimony, party calling witness should usually be permitted to impeach witness with prior inconsistent statement; statement should be truly inconsistent and caution should be exercised in permitting impeachment of witness who has given favorable testimony but simply fails to recall every detail unless witness appears to be fabricating).

MONACO, C.J., EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Richard Hotaling, Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of DeWitt et al., Respondents.

[775 NYS2d 748]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (William R. Roy, J), entered November 21, 2002 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum; Supreme Court properly denied the CPLR article 78 petition challenging the determination requiring petitioner to obtain a use variance, rather than an area variance, in order to operate his “adult use” business. The zoning regulation applicable herein prohibits “adult uses” within 1,000 *1228feet of property used for residential purposes, and thus a use variance is required *(see Matter of Doran v Lewis,*309 AD2d 1183, 1184 [2003]). With regard to petitioner’s constitutional challenges, we note that a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper procedural vehicle by which to challenge the constitutionality of a legislative enactment *(see Press v County of Monroe,*50 NY2d 695, 702 [1980]; *see also DiMiero v Livingston-Steuben-Wyoming County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.,*199 AD2d 875, 876-877 [1993], *lv denied*83 NY2d 756 [1994]). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Wisner and Lawton, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Northfield Laboratories Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven A. Gould, M.D.,
Chief Executive Officer of Northfield Laboratories Inc., 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 Northfield Laboratories Inc.

Date: January 7, 2005

/s/ Steven A. Gould, M.D.
---------------------------
Steven A. Gould, M.D.
Chief Executive Officer
#### Caletha BROWN v. Edwin A. BORDELON and Bordelon’s Super Save, Inc.

No. 2012-C-0547.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Brown, Caletha; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 510,958; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 1014.

Denied.
#### Terri Lynn BROWN, Appellant, v. Patricia A. COLLER, Appellee.

No. 1D11-0381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 18, 2011.

Terri Lynn Brown, pro se, Appellant.

Jack M. Ross of Siegel Hughes & Ross, Gainesville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss as an Improper Appeal from a Non-Final Order, filed February 15, 2011, is granted. The appeal is DISMISSED. *See Jensen v. Whetstine,*985 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); *Massachusetts Life Ins. Co. v. Crapo,*918 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

BENTON, C.J., LEWIS and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HENNY RONDONUWU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 22-953

Agency No.

A200-991-916

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 11, 2023**

Seattle, Washington

Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Henny Rondonuwu, a native and citizen of Indonesia, conceded

removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). She seeks review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an

Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and CAT relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not 

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 15 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.

Rondonuwu did not mention suffering any physical mistreatment when

describing perceived incidents of persecution in her application materials. But

when Rondonuwu appeared before the IJ, she testified that she was subjected to

numerous incidents of domestic violence because of her Christian beliefs. The

IJ “provid[ed] specific and cogent reasons” to support its finding that

Rondonuwu lacked credibility because of her inconsistent testimony. Shrestha 

v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder, 

576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009)). And nothing in the record otherwise

compels the conclusion that Rondonuwu is credible. See Khadka v. Holder, 618

F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Rondonuwu has failed to produce any

credible evidence that she has faced, or will face, an individualized risk of

persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(requiring some “specifically individualized evidence” even where petitioner is

a member of a disfavored group). And the remainder of the record does not

compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Rondonuwu will be

tortured. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49.

PETITION DENIED.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Xynergy Corporation (the Company) on
Form10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Raquel Zepeda, Chief
Executive Officer 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 result of operations of the
Company.

Dated: August 8, 2003                       By:  /s/ Raquel Zepeda
                                               --------------------------------
                                                     Raquel Zepeda,
                                                     Chief Executive Officer &
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
857 A.2d 675

#### LEE PUBLICATIONS, INC., Publisher of The Sentinel and Carol Talley, Executive Editor and Acting Publisher of the Sentinel, and The Patriot-News and Cate Barron, Appellants, v. The DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW of the Pennsylvania State University Association, and the Board of Governors of the Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University Association, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 16, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of September 2004, the above-captioned appeal was improvidently granted and is hereby DISMISSED. Furthermore, Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss for Mootness is hereby DENIED.

Justice EAKIN did not participate in this matter.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4947

_____________________________

CHARLES CANNON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County.

Dawn Caloca-Johnson, Judge.

February 20, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Baya Harrison, III, Monticello, for Appellant.
2

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Benjamin Louis Hoffman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Newton M. HARRIS v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 and E.J. Fielding Funeral Home, Inc. Newton M. Harris, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Suzanne Halkett Harris v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 1, Michael Iverson, MD and James Wattlers, CRNAA.

No. 2012-C-0585.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re St. Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 1 D/B/A St. Tammany Parish Hospital; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2010-12773 C/W 2007-13187; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2011 CA 0941, 2011 CA 0942.

Denied.