alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John BOATFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John CUPP, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-6546.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Sept. 10, 2003.

John Boatfield, pro se, Tiptonville, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*598R. Dee Hobbs, Bell *&*Hobbs, Chattanooga, TN, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before SUHRHEINRICH, COLE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

John Boatfield, a pro se Tennessee prisoner, appeals a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration construed as being filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Seeking monetary and declaratory relief, Boatfield sued Hamilton County, Tennessee, and multiple county prison personnel concerning the lack of treatment he received for his back condition. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice as Boatfield had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing his suit. Boatfield then filed a motion for reconsideration which the district court denied.

On March 20, 2003, this court held that Boatfield’s notice of appeal was untimely regarding the district court’s order dismissing the merits of his complaint. However, the court found that Boatfield’s Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration was properly before the court. The court ordered that only issues regarding the district court’s dismissal order of the Rule 60(b) motion could be raised on appeal.

In his appeal, Boatfield contends that the district court should have granted his Rule 60(b) motion as he in fact had exhausted his available administrative remedies.

An order denying Rule 60(b) relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. *See Lewis v. Alexander,*987 F.2d 392, 396 (6th Cir.1993). An abuse of discretion exists when the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a clear error in judgment. *See Amernational Inds., Inc. v. Action-Tungsram, Inc.,*925 F.2d 970, 975 (6th Cir.1991). An appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion does not bring up the underlying judgment for review. *Id.*

In his Rule 60(b) motion, Boatfield gave a chronological history regarding his back problems. However, Boatfield’s description does not establish that he exhausted his administrative remedies nor did he provide documentation to establish the exhaustion of such remedies. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Boatfield Rule 60(b) relief.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38975

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL ROBERT WOODHALL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 350

Filed: February 3, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of two years, for delivery of methamphetamine, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Michael Robert Woodhall was convicted of delivery of methamphetamine, Idaho Code 

§ 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Woodhall to a unified term of ten years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of two years, to run consecutively with a previously imposed 

sentence in a separate case. Woodhall appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Woodhall’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
# Sitemap

## July 1987

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1987
- July 1987

            - 01
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=1689
Exhibit 99.1



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONCFO



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Plains Exploration & Production Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Flores, Chief Executive 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:



To the best of my knowledge, after
reasonable investigation:



| | (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 14, 2003.



/s/    James C. FloresJames C. Flores Chief Executive Officer




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
      31.2




**SECTION
      302 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




*On
      March 21, 2003, the Company terminated the employment of its four senior
      officers due to corporate mismanagement in the form of accounting irregularities
      and securities fraud during the fiscal years ended October 31, 2002 and 2001.
      At
      the time of their termination, all of these former officers were the subject
      of
      an investigation by the United States Department of Justice and three were
      subject to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In August
      19, 2003, as a result of the United States Department of Justice investigation,
      three of the former officers pled guilty to conspiring to inflate the revenue
      and earnings of the Company and for lying to investigators and the fourth former
      officer pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Also in August 19, 2003, the
      former officers who were under investigation by the Securities and Exchange
      Commission agreed to a consent decree with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission. As a result of the actions of the former officers of the Company,
      and due to the Company’s inability to adequately verify the results of the
      Company’s operations for the year ended October 31, 2002 because of incomplete
      or missing data, the Company was not able to prepare complete and accurate
      financial statements for the quarters ended January 31, 2002, April 30, 2002,
      July 31, 2002 and the year ended October 31, 2002, except for the balance sheet
      dated as of October 31, 2002 included in the Company’s annual report on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2002. Since the Company does not
      have complete and accurate financial statements for 2002, certain portions
      of
      this report do not contain the required comparison to the results of operations
      in 2002. Consequently, the Company’s current Chief Financial Officer is unable
      to include the certification required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002.*
Exhibit 10.2


 








 


April
29, 2020


 


Dear
Ray:


 


This
letter memorializes our recent discussions regarding our collective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its dramatic impact
on our community, our economy, and Ballantyne Strong, Inc. (the “Company”).


 


You
have voluntarily agreed, during the Specified Period (as defined below), to reduce your rate of base salary by 60%, from your
current rate of base salary of $275,000 (your “Regular Salary”) to a rate of base salary of $110,000 (your
“Reduced Salary”). The “Specified Period” shall mean the period commencing on April 13,
2020 and continuing until June 30, 2020.


 


For
the avoidance of doubt, for all purposes of the definition of “good reason” set forth in the executive employment
agreement between you and the Company dated February 14, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”), the reduction from
your Regular Salary to your Reduced Salary will not be deemed to constitute a material breach of the Company’s obligations
to you under the Employment Agreement during the Specified Period.


 


Notwithstanding
the foregoing, for all purposes of Section 7 of the Employment Agreement, determinations made by reference to your “Base
Salary” shall be based on your Regular Salary during the Specified Period.


 


Except
as modified hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


Please
indicate your agreement to the foregoing by your signature below.


 


Best
Regards,


 


	BALLANTYNE
    STRONG, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Mark D. Roberson	 
	Name:	Mark
    D. Roberson	 
	Title:	CEO	 


 








	Acknowledged and Agreed as of April 29, 2020:	 
	 	 
	/s/
    Ray F. Boegner	 
	Ray
    F. Boegner
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 7, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on Clean Diesel V (“Clean Diesel V”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, BP International Limited, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex, UNITED KINGDOM, has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Clean Diesel V intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On January 10, 2008, Clean Diesel V filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 25, 2008 (73 FR 10064).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 10, 2009. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 27, 2010 (75 FR 4422).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2010-27371 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-41-M
#### Boyd v. Windsor Insurance Co.

*348C.P. of Fayette County,

no. 1110 of 1997, G.D.

*Willaim M. Radcliffe,*for plaintiff.

*John W. Zotter,*for defendant.

February 8, 1999

SOLOMON, *J.,*

Before the court is the motion for reconsideration or certification filed by the defendant, Windsor Insurance Company. In its motion, the defendant asks the court to reconsider its opinion and order of January 5, 1999. Therein, we held that, from the record, it appeared that there existed a crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and we granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories and request for production of documents. Only upon filing the instant motion did the defendant produce the documents sought by the plaintiff and request and in camera inspection of those documents. Having done so, we are of the opinion that we must reverse our order of January 5, 1999.

In order for the exception to apply, the defendant must have either conspired with its counsel or deceived its counsel for the purpose of furthering a continuing or future tort. *Nadler*v. *Warner Company,*321 Pa. 139, 184 A. 3 (1936). The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff in this matter to establish that production of the documents would not violate the attorney-client privilege. *In re Investigating Grand Jury of Philadelphia County,*527 Pa. 432, 593 A.2d 402 (1991). This burden has not been sustained.

Here, an examination of the documents in question fails to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies. The documents do not disclose that the defendant used the services of its attorneys to further a continuing or future tort of bad faith and breach of *349fiduciary duty. The documents contain nothing more than legal advice given to the defendant.

Wherefore, we will enter the following order.

ORDER

And now, February 8, 1999, upon reconsideration, the plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories and request for production of documents, regarding memorandums and correspondence between the defendant and its counsel, is ordered denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

N OTICE

Appellate case name: In the Matter of Approximately $80,600.00

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00424

- CV

Trial court case number: 1417446

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

Appellate case number 01

- 14

- 00424

- CV is associated with trial court case number 1417446. Appellant Abraham M. Fisch’s notice of appeal identifies that he appealed actions taken by the trial court in trial court case number 1417446 and trial court case number 1210228. No appellate case number has been created associated with trial court case number 1210228. No docketing statement has been filed to clarify whether Fisch intended to appeal under both trial

court case numbers. Appellant’s brief in the existing appellate case number challenges the validity of the complained

- of order in trial court case number 1210228 and the propriety of the

result of the order in trial court case number 1417446.

This Court requests clarification from the parties conce rning (1) whether Fisch intended to file a direct appeal of trial court case number 1210228, (2) whether a new appellate case number should be created to be associated with trial court case number 1210228, (3) whether a record needs to be filed and the par ties should be allowed to file new briefs under this new appellate case number, and (4) whether Vikram Patel should be treated as a party to the appeal under this new appellate case number and should be provided notice to be able to respond to the

issues r aised.

The parties have ten days from the date of this notice to respond. During this time and pending a resolution of the matters identified in this notice , appellate case number 01

- 14

- 00424

- CV will remain on the submission docket for September 23, 2015. The C ourt also requests the parties to provide a mailing address for Vikram Patel in case notice becomes necessary.

Clerk’s signature:

Date: September 9, 2015
EXHIBIT 32.3



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 Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Clarence G. Simmons, III, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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





|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    CLARENCE G. SIMMONS, III                            
|Clarence G. Simmons, III                                   
|Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                           
|August 8, 2005
# Sitemap

## January 17, 2018

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2018
- 01
- January 17, 2018

            - Water Deluge Test a Success at Launch Pad 39B
            - The Marshall Star
            - Ultralight Lattice-based Materials for Multifunctional Space Structures
            - Chip-Scale Low-Noise Optoelectronic Synthesizer for the EHF-Band
            - Balloon Flights Help Advance Technology to Probe Planetary Evolution
            - Balloon Flights Help Advance Technology to Probe Planetary Evolution
            - Balloon Flights Help Advance Technology to Probe Planetary Evolution
            - Balloon Flights Help Advance Technology to Probe the Evolution of Planets
            - Even in the Desert
            - Season 1, Episode 9: Uranus and Neptune with Amy Simon
Exhibit 4.1 


   





 Alaia Capital, LLC 


 10 Corbin Drive 


 Darien, Connecticut 06820 


   


 May 8, 2020 


   


 m+ Buffered Fund, m+ funds Trust, Series 3-2 


 c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee 


 2 Hanson Place, 12th Floor 


 Brooklyn, New York 11217 


   


		 Re: 	 m+ funds Trust, Series3-2 (the “Trust”) 



   


   


 Ladies and Gentlemen: 


   


 We have examined Amendment No.1 to the
Registration Statement (File No. 333-237252) for the above captioned Trust. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Alaia Capital, LLC as evaluator. 


   


 You are hereby authorized to file a
copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 


   


   










	   	 Very
    truly yours, 	   
	   	   	   
	   	 Alaia
    Capital, LLC 	   
	   	   	   
	   	 By: 	 /s/
    Oscar Loynaz 	   	   
	   	   	 Name:
    Oscar Loynaz 	   
	   	   	 Title:  Managing
    Director
#### Caldwell *v.*Sithens.

*Thursday, May*23.

*W. Johnson,*one of the partners of. the firm 'of *Caldwell, Saxon,*& *Johnson,*executed the following note : “ *December*7, 1835. One day after date, due *J. Sithens*267 dollars and 87 cents for work done on west river bridge. For the company of *W. Caldwell, W. Saxon,*and *W.*Johnson.— By me, *William, Johnson J Held,,*that this note bound the firm.

ERROR to the *Fayette*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, *J.*

Sithens■ brought an action of assumpsit against Caldwell, Saxon, and Johnson, on a note in the following form :— .

> *“December*7, 1835. One day after date, due *Jesse Sfthens*267 dollars and 87 cents for work done on west river bridge. For the company of *William,*Caldwell, *William*Saxon, and *William Johnson.*— By me *William*Johnson.”

The defendants pleaded the general issue. On the trial, the note was offered in evidence and objected to by defendants ; but the Court admitted it as evidence of the promise laid in the declaration. This is the only error assigned.

This case may be somewhat assimilated to the case of Lord *Galway*v. *Matthew*and Smithson, surviving partners of *T.*Whitsmith, in 1 Camp. Rep. 403. In that case, the form of the note sued on was as follows: “ *December*16, 1805. Sixty days after date, I pay Lord *Viscount Galway*or order 200l. value received. For *J.*Matthew, *T.*Whitsmith, and *T. Smithson.*— J. *Matthew.*”

It was contended in that case, as it is in this, that the note was- binding only on the person who signed it; that it was a mere ■ personal undertaking by the signer of the note to pay a sum of money supposed to be due from himself and his copartners. Lord *Ellenborough*held, however, that a note-made in that manner was sufficient on the face of it to bind the whole firm.

*100
      *C. B. Smith,*for the plaintiff.

*O. H. Smith,*for the defendant.

The copartnership of the defendants is acknowledged, and there can be no doubt, but that *Johnson*had the power to bind the firm.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with 3 *per cent.*damages and costs.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Brian A. COX.

No. 2009-K-0667.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 14, 2011.

In re Cox, Brian; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 08-17881; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44, 448-KW.

Denied.