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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6712

JONATHAN JAMES, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GEORGE T. HAGAN, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (9:08-cv-01106-CMC)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan James, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jonathan James seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that James 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE COMPANY PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Pehong Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of BroadVision, Inc. (the "Company"), and Shin-Yuan Tzou, the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 7thday of May, 2010.


/s/  Pehong ChenPehong Chen
Chief Executive Officer
  /s/  Shin-Yuan TzouShin-Yuan Tzou
Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of BroadVision, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### George LOPEZ v. Cynthia HEBERT, Records Department Supervisor, et al.

No. 2010-CI-1158.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Lopez, George; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 566,407; *992to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1777.

Denied.
#### Sroufe, Appellee, *v.*Guttman et al., d. b. a. The Guttman Construction Co., Appellants.

(Decided June 24, 1940.)

*557
      *Mr. Irwin E. Wolf son,*for appellee.

*Mr. Louis Weiland,*for appellants.

Hamilton, P. J.

This case originated in the Municipal Court of Cincinnati, wherein plaintiff sued for a balance claimed due him as commission for procuring purchasers, and assisting in the sale of commodities and services of the defendant company.

The amount claimed was $300.

The defendant company filed a cross-bill, asking affirmative relief.

The trial resulted in a judgment for $300, with interest, in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendant company filed an appeal on questions of law and fact to the Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on law and fact, as not properly being a law and fact appeal. The court reduced the appeal to one on law, heard and decided the appeal on questions of law only, and affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court. The defendant company, appellant herein, claims this was error, as it was entitled to a trial of the facts by the Common Pleas Court under authority of the justices’ code, which it claims applies to this case.

This claim is answered to the contrary in the case of *Weaver*v. *Reichert,*unreported, wherein this court denied the right of appeal under the justices’ code, from the Municipal Court of Cincinnati, and held that the Municipal Court Act of Cincinnati specifically provides for prosecuting error (now appeal on questions of law), to the Common Pleas Court, and no special appeal on facts.

Moreover, if the justices’ code could be held to apply, giving the right to a full trial on review, that method of appeal was not relied upon, as that would have required a new petition and pleadings making up the *558issue in the Common Pleas Court. The defendant company relied upon the appeal which it filed on law and fact, as provided in the new Appellate Procedure Act. There being no chancery question involved, the court was correct in reducing the appeal to one on law.

Complaint is made that the plaintiff was permitted, in giving his testimony, to make undue use of a memorandum, under the guise of refreshing his recollection. He did use his memorandum of prices on contracts, which he claimed to have procured. The court did permit him to use his memorandum, expressly stating it could not be used as evidence, but could be used to refresh his recollection. The court has discretion in such case, and.we do not find it abused that discretion.

It is argued that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. We find no merit in this claim. The newly discovered evidence claimed and set forth in the affidavit would not require a different judgment. It is more cumulative than otherwise, and no sufficient reason appears for not producing the evidence and witnesses during the trial.

We find no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court of Cincinnati, is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Matthews and Boss, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7623
RALPH SINGLETARY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD JONES, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-550-H) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Singletary, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant a certificate of appealability and modify the district court's order to reflect that the action was dismissed without prejudice, we affirm the order as modified on the reasoning of the district court. Singletary v. Jones , No. CA-96-550-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions for appointment and assigning of counsel, and 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 AS MODIFIED
No. 87-5972.

#### Ospina *v.*United States; and Ramos et al. *v.*United States.

No. 87-6011.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
<PERIOD-TYPE>  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                         2,598
<SECURITIES>                                  14,425
<RECEIVABLES>                                 61,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                     525
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              78,293
<PP&E>                                         1,348
<DEPRECIATION>                                   299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                79,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         73,198
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          3,890
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          57
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  79,342
<SALES>                                       11,364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              11,364
<CGS>                                          2,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,531
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 537
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                     792
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,217
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,217
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .20

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF VERSATA, INC.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

REGARDING
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, James Doehrman, Executive Vice President, Chief Operating and Financial
Officer of Versata, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), do hereby certify that:



1.    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10K/A for the year ended October 31, 2002 (the Form 10-K)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.    Information contained in the Form 10K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





By:

/s/ JAMES DOEHRMANJames Doehrman Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer
and Chief Financial Officer






Date: March 26, 2003
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5611-H5612]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      WILDERNESS LEGISLATION PRESERVES UTAH AREA FOR ALL AMERICANS

  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, today is a historic time for the State of 
Utah. In our great State out in the West, we have been told that we can 
put three different areas into wilderness. One is Forest Service, one 
is park, and one is Bureau of Land Management.
  In 1984 Ronald Reagan signed the wilderness bill for Forest Service, 
and it was a historic time. We preserved in the State of Utah some of 
the most beautiful, pristine areas that the people in the world have 
seen, and people come from all over the world to see this glorious area 
that will now be untrammeled by man, as if man was never there, as if 
you were the first person God put on Earth, and you can 
[[Page H5612]] see it in all its majesty. Now today we are introducing 
one for the Bureau of Land Management.
  The State of Utah has 22 million acres--3.2 is considered fit and 
worthy of wilderness. This bill is 1.8, which is the most pristine of 
all this. It is the jewel of our national parks, of which we have five. 
This will be truly untrammeled by man.
  We are going to start the procedure now. It will go through the 
subcommittee, the committee, and on the floor. I hope the people of the 
United States, the people of Utah, will realize what a wonderful thing 
they are going to have, in my opinion, as they see this area put into a 
wilderness designation. I am grateful for all the help we have had on 
this particular bill.

                          ____________________
```
#### The CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF the FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, Scientist; The Christian Science Publishing Society, Plaintiff-Appellees, v. David E. ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant, and David J. Nolan; University of Christian Science; The Roan Mountain Institute of Christian Science and Health, Defendants.

No. 00-2029.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2000.

Decided Jan. 9, 2001.

*158David E. Robinson, pro se. Joseph H. Lessem, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, NY, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

David E. Robinson appeals from the district court’s orders granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, issuing a permanent injunction, dismissing as frivolous a number of Robinson’s motions, and denying Robinson’s motion for reconsideration in this trademark infringement case. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Christian Science Bd. v. Robinson,*No. CA-99-148-1 (W.D.N.C. July 11 & July 24, 2000).* 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.*

*

 Although the district court’s orders are marked as "filed” on July 6, 2000, and July 21, 2000, respectively, the district court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on July 11, 2000, and July 24, 2000, respectively. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court's decision. *Wilson v. Murray,*806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
Exhibit 10.1


 


Form of Amendment to Robert R. Hill, Jr. and John C. Pollok and
Joe E. Burns Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreements


 


AMENDMENT


TO THE


SOUTH CAROLINA BANK AND TRUST,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


AMENDED AND RESTATED SUPPLEMENTAL
EXECUTIVE


RETIREMENT AGREEMENT


DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2006


FOR


 






 


THIS AMENDMENT is adopted this 30th day
of December, 2008, by and between SCBT, N.A., formerly known as South Carolina
Bank and Trust, National Association, a national bank located in Orangeburg,
South Carolina (the “Bank”), and                                 
(the “Executive”).


 


The Bank and the Executive executed the Amended and
Restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement effective as of November 1,
2006 (the “Agreement”).


 


Pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Agreement, the
undersigned hereby amend the Agreement for the purpose of amending Section 8.2
regarding termination of the Agreement. 
Therefore, the following changes shall be made:


 


Section 8.2 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and
replaced by the following:


 


8.2                                 Plan
Termination Generally.  The Bank may unilaterally terminate this
Agreement at any time.  The benefit shall
be the amount accrued by the Bank with respect to the Bank’s obligations
hereunder.  Except as
provided in Section 8.3, upon the termination of this Agreement, the Bank
shall distribute such benefits owed under this Agreement to the Executive in a
lump sum within thirty (30) days after such termination.


(italics added to highlight added language)


 


All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Bank and the Executive
hereby consent to this Amendment.


 


	
  Executive:

  	
   

  	
  SCBT,
  N.A.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:  Secretary
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


     I, Curtis A. Swanson,  the Principal  Executive  Officer of RTIN  Holdings,
     Inc., certify that:


     1. I have reviewed this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of RTIN Holdings,
Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

     4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:


     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information   relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its  consolidated
     subsidiaries,  is  made  known  to  us by  others  within  those  entities,
     particularly  during  the period in which  this  quarterly  report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
     procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
     quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


     c)  presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our   conclusions   about  the
     effectiveness  of the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant's other certifying  officers and I have disclosed,  based
on our most  recent  evaluation,  to the  registrant's  auditors  and the  audit
committee  of  registrant's  board  of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the
equivalent functions):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the  registrant's  ability to record,
     process,  summarize and report  financial data and have  identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
     employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in  the  registrant's  internal
     controls; and

     6. The registrant's other certifying  officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date:    November 19, 2003

/s/      Curtis A. Swanson
         Curtis A. Swanson
         President and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Luther McFARLAND v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0132.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re McFarland, Luther; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 04-5428; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-743.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                         273
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         2,718
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    66
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         2,839
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           2,842
<LOANS>                                        38,758
<ALLOWANCE>                                    293
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 45,429
<DEPOSITS>                                     36,061
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            283
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8
<OTHER-SE>                                     9,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 45,429
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2,293
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              133
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               149
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               2,575
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1,265
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,265
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1,310
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                868
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                535
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     535
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   326
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .60
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.95
<LOANS-NON>                                    1,149
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               293
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  0
<RECOVERIES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              293
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           293
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        


</TABLE>