alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Theodore J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dean WALKER; Ricky Anderson; Robert Guy; Captain Justice; Lieutenant Carroll; Officer Byrd; Cindy Haynes; Nurse Condrey; Sheila Taylor, Nurse; Alice Lennard; David Bobo, Individually and in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-7052.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 29, 2000.

Decided Jan. 10, 2001.

Theodore J. Williams, pro se. Wilham McBlief, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appel-lees.

Before LUTTIG, DIANA GIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Theodore J. Williams 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Williams v. Walker,*No. CA-97-168-4MU (W.D .N.C. July 17, 2000). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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.*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8019** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ROBERT DEON HUNTER, SR., a/k/a Bob Hunter , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00251

- MR

- 4; 1:0 9

- cv - 00297

- LHT )

Submitted : March 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

D ismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Deon Hunter, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Deon Hunter, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 ). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would f ind 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 Hunter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appea l. 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
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Labor Relations Board

# Time and Dates:

All meetings are held at 2:30 p.m.

Tuesday, October 5; 

Wednesday, October 6; 

Thursday, October 7; 

Tuesday, October 12; 

Wednesday, October 13; 

Thursday, October 14; 

Tuesday, October 19; 

Wednesday, October 20; 

Thursday, October 21; 

Tuesday, October 26; 

Wednesday, October 27; 

Thursday, October 28. 

# Place:

Board Agenda Room, No. 11820, 1099 14th St., NW., Washington, DC 20570. 

# Status:

Closed. 

# Matters to be Considered:

                         Pursuant to § 102.139(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Board or a panel thereof will consider “the issuance of a subpoena, the Board's participation in a civil action or proceeding or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition * * * of particular representation or unfair labor practice proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of the [National Labor Relations] Act, or any court proceedings collateral or ancillary thereto.”                         *See also*5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).                     

# Contact Person for More Information:

Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary, (202) 273-1067. 

Dated: October 4, 2010. 

Lester A. Heltzer, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-25389 Filed 10-5-10; 4:15 pm ] 

BILLING CODE P
585 A.2d 413

#### LIDA M. STELLA v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. AND DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS HIGH YIELD SECURITIES, INC. AND MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK AND MIDLANTIC NATIONAL BANK/SOUTH v. JOHN J. SYKES, JR.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 241 *N.J.Super.*55, 574 A.2d 468)
#### CHASE RESORTS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORP., etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 79-1823.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 1980.

Decided May 1, 1980.

Dempster K. Holland, Thomas, Busse, Goodwin, Cullen, Clooney & Gibbons, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

Eugene K. Buckley, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, Mo. (argued), and Carl D. Kraft, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellees.

Before HEANEY and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and SACHS, District Judge.*

*

 The Hon. Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Chase Resorts, Inc., and Four Seasons Lakesites, Inc., brought this action against Johns-Manville Corporation and Johns-Man-ville Sales Corporation alleging breach of warranty and fraud in the sale of an auto*204matic watering system for a golf course. The case was tried to the Court, the Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin, Chief Judge, presiding. On June 29, 1979, Judge Wangelin made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law favorable to defendants. The opinion is reported at 476 F.Supp. 633 (E.D. Mo.1979). Judgment was entered accordingly.

We affirm on the basis of the District Court’s opinion. The Court found that Johns-Manville had not breached implied or express warranties and had not made fraudulent representations. These findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. See 8th Cir.R. 14.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Michael C. Purvis, an Attorney, Resignor.

[775 NYS2d 614]

Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from the roll of attorneys *(see Matter ofManown, 240*AD2d 83 [1998]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
585 A.2d 377

#### PAUL M. JETTE v. ESTATE OF DAYTON HOPKINS.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 210

#### DOMINICK CELLI v. SARAH DREBITKO. THOMAS PHILIP AYERS v. SARAH E. DREBITKO. GARY C. SANTORA v. SARAH DREBITKO.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
863 A.2d 363

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH E. POVEROMO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 0347221988).

January 6, 2005.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed its decision with the Court in DRB 04-189, concluding that JOSEPH E. POVEROMO of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1988, and who has been suspended from the practice of law since June 25, 2003, pursuant to Orders of this Court filed on June 25, 2003, and October 2, 2003, should be suspended from practice for a period of one year for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), *RPC*1.3(lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(a) (failure to communicate with a *client),RPC*1.16(b) (failure to protect a client’s interest upon termination of representation and failure to refund to a client an unearned fee), *RPC*3.2(failure to expedite litigation), *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to reply to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority),and *RPC*8.4(a)(vio-lating the *Rules of Professional*Conduct);

And JOSEPH E. POVEROMO having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause issued in this matter;

And the Court having determined from its review of the record in this matter and on the basis of respondent’s failure to appear on the Court’s Order to Show Cause that disbarment is required, *In re Kantor,*180 *N.J.*226, 850 A.2d 473 (2004);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOSEPH E. POVEROMO be disbarred, effective immediately, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that JOSEPH E. POVEROMO be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

*207ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by JOSEPH E. POVEROMO pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
EX-10.1




 Exhibit 10.1 

December ___, 2021 
 [NAME] 

Re:    2021 Annual Bonus Accelerated Payment 

Dear [NAME]: 
 This letter agreement (the “Letter
Agreement”) memorializes your agreement and understanding with Ferro Corporation (“Ferro”) regarding annual incentive plan bonus payments that Ferro may accelerate to mitigate the potential effects of Sections
280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in connection with the anticipated completion of the merger contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into by and among Ferro, PMHC II Inc. and PMHC Fortune Merger Sub,
Inc., dated as of May 11, 2021, as amended. 
 The accelerated annual bonus payment, if any, less applicable tax withholdings, is expected to be paid
to you on or prior to December 31, 2021. 
 In the event that Ferro’s Board of Directors or a committee thereof subsequently determines that the
accelerated annual bonus payment made to you as described above exceeds the amount that you would have been entitled to receive in respect of such annual bonus based on the measurement of final applicable performance results for 2021 as calculated
pursuant to the 2021 annual incentive plan, you agree to repay any such excess payment amounts to Ferro within 30 days following such determination. 
 This
Letter Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to conflicts of laws principles thereof and may be executed in separate counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original and
all of which taken together constitute one and the same agreement. 











 Please confirm your agreement by signing below. 

Sincerely, 
 [NAME] 

[TITLE] 
  

	
	 ACCEPTED BY:

	
	  

	 [NAME]



  
 2
Exhibit 10.4


 


Ribbit LEAP, Ltd.


 


Registration and Shareholder Rights Agreement
Joinder 


 


By executing and delivering this signature page,
Jeff Bogan (the “Purchaser”) hereby acknowledges and agrees that it is purchasing 32,500 Class B ordinary shares, par
value $0.0001 per share, of Ribbit LEAP, Ltd. (the “Company”), for a purchase price of US47.11, pursuant to that certain
Share Transfer Agreement, dated as of December 2, 2021, as amended, by and among the Company, Ribbit LEAP Sponsor, Ltd., a Cayman Islands
exempted company (“Sponsor”) and the Purchaser. Further each of the Company, the Sponsor and the Purchaser hereby acknowledge
and agree that the Purchaser hereby joins in, becomes a party to and agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of that certain Registration
and Shareholder Rights Agreement dated as of September 10, 2020, as may be amended, by and among the Company, the Sponsor and the Holders
(as such term is defined therein) (the “Registration Rights Agreement”), under which the Purchaser agrees to and shall
be bound by and subject to the terms of the Registration Rights Agreement as a “Holder” (as defined in the Registration Rights
Agreement).


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






     


     


    

 





The undersigned hereby authorizes this signature
page or a copy hereof to be attached to the Registration Rights Agreement or counterparts thereof.


 


Dated: December 2, 2021


 


	COMPANY:	 
	 	 
	Ribbit LEAP, Ltd.	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/ Cindy McAdam	 
	Name: Cindy McAdam	 
	Title: Chief Operating Officer	 


 


	SPONSOR:	 
	 	 
	Ribbit LEAP Sponsor, Ltd.	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/ Cindy McAdam	 
	Name: Cindy McAdam	 
	Title: Authorized Signatory	 


 


	
    PURCHASER: 

	 
	By:	/s/ Jeff Bogan	 
	Name: Jeff Bogan
#### In the Matter of Edmund F. Burke, Respondent, v Patricia Dickman et al., Constituting the Village Board of the Village of Orchard Park, Appellants.

[775 NYS2d 648]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered May 2, 2003 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment granted the petition to annul the determination denying petitioner a special use permit.

*1164It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner applied to the Village Board of the Village of Orchard Park (Village Board) for a special use permit to construct an apartment complex, consisting of two buildings housing 14 two-bedroom units and a rear building to be used as a 12-car garage. The Village Board denied the application, and petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the determination of the Village Board. Supreme Court erred in granting the petition and directing the Village Board to issue a special use permit. We agree with respondents that petitioner failed to show compliance with at least some of the legislative conditions required for the granting of a special use permit. In seeking such a permit, a petitioner must “show compliance with any legislatively imposed conditions on an otherwise permitted use” *(Matter of Retail Prop. Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead,*98 NY2d 190,195 [2002]). Once a petitioner shows compliance with the conditions imposed, the special use permit must be granted unless there are reasonable grounds for denying it that are supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Leon Petroleum v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Mineola,*309 AD2d 804, 805 [2003]; *Matter of Feinberg v Board of Appeals of Town of Sanford,*306 AD2d 593, 594 [2003]; *see also Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v Yevoli,*90 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1997]). Failure to comply with any condition, however, is a sufficient ground for denial of the permit *(see Retail Prop. Trust,*98 NY2d at 195; *Matter of Wegmans Enters, v Lansing,*72 NY2d 1000, 1001-1002 [1988]). There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Village Board’s determination that petitioner failed to show compliance with the legislative conditions that the proposed project be compatible with adjoining land uses, that the proposed project is needed at the present time, and that the proposed project will not impede the orderly flow of traffic and normal traffic patterns *(see Wegmans Enters.,*72 NY2d at 1002; *Leon Petroleum,*309 AD2d at 806; *Feinberg,*306 AD2d at 594). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7243 

AN ACT 

To amend Public Law 115–217 to change the address of 

the postal facility designated by such Public Law in 

honor of Sergeant First Class Alwyn Crendall Cashe, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 7243 EH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO CHANGE ADDRESS OF POSTAL 

2 FACILITY DESIGNATED BY PUBLIC LAW 115- 

3 217. 

4 In section 1(a) of Public Law 115–217, strike ‘‘567 

5 East Franklin Street’’ and insert ‘‘83 Geneva Drive’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 

2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7243 

AN ACT 

To amend Public Law 115–217 to change the adAlwyn Crendall Cashe, and for other purposes. Public Law in honor of Sergeant First Class dress of the postal facility designated by such
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Goergen,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,except for the matters set forth in Part II – Item 5 of this Quarterly Report;and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert  B. Goergen                    |
|   | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | December  16, 2004                    |

 

 

This certification is madesolely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standardcontained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, November 17, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 2 p.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: October 4, 2010.

Shawn F. Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. 2010-25459 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
.....................

NUMBERS 13-12-00008-CR AND 13-12-00009-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

KIMBERLY AUZENNE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 105th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Kimberly Auzenne, by and through her attorney, has filed motions to 

dismiss her appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the 

cases, we grant the motions to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

42.2(a) and dismiss the appeals. Having dismissed the appeals at appellant's request,
2

no motions for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandates will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the 

2nd day of February, 2012.
647 A.2d 466

#### IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 16, 1994.

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR., of MILLVILLE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1974, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR., is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR., pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6, shall be restrained from disbursement except upon application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause issued in this matter on July 22, 1994, be discharged.
#### In re LOUISIANA JUDICIARY COMMISSION NO. 10-7539.

No. 2010-O-2583.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Johnson, Elfrida W.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 7, 2011 and April 8, 2011; Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, No. 10-7539.

Second application for reconsideration not considered. Judgment is final. See *120La.CodeCiv.P. art. 2167. No further filings shall be accepted in this matter.