alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and

10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 27, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

FELIX ZACAPALA-DIAZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4065

(D.C. No. 2:09-CR-00717-TS-1)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Felix Zacapala-Diaz pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to

manufacturing a controlled substance by cultivation in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment, the

mandatory minimum sentence. Although Mr. Zacapala-Diaz’s plea agreement

included a waiver of his right to appeal his sentence, he has filed an appeal

Appellate Case: 10-4065 Document: 01018430230 Date Filed: 05/27/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

seeking to challenge his sentence. The government has filed a motion to enforce

the appeal waiver, citing United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004)

(en banc) (per curiam). 

In determining whether an appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal

waiver, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily

waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in

a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. Mr. Zacapala-Diaz concedes that his

appeal is within the scope of the appellate waiver, he knowingly and voluntarily

entered his plea, and the record does not disclose a reasonable basis for

concluding that enforcing the plea waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. 

Upon review of the plea agreement and plea and sentencing hearing transcripts,

we conclude that Mr. Zacapala-Diaz cannot establish any of the applicable

exceptions to enforcement of the appeal waiver and therefore the appeal waiver

should be enforced. 

Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion to enforce the appeal

waiver contained in the plea agreement and DISMISS the appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM

Appellate Case: 10-4065 Document: 01018430230 Date Filed: 05/27/2010 Page: 2
<PAGE>


                                                               Exhibit 10.13


June 9, 1999


Scott Colwell
Friendly's Ice Cream Corp.
1855 Boston Road
Wilbraham, MA 01095                  (Letterhead)


Dear Scott:


This letter is to confirm that effective July 1, 1999 Visual Events, Inc. will
operate under a monthly retainer relationship with Friendly's Ice Cream Corp.

The retainer is $12,000 per month and includes a total of eight (8) travel trips
by Visual Events during a 12 month period (i.e., July, 1999 through June, 2000).
Any additional trips over the eight within the twelve month period will be
invoiced as part of the project. This is a somewhat informal agreement, however,
the following shall be part of the monthly retainer:

MARKETING MANAGEMENT & PLANNING
The monthly retainer includes the following marketing management services as
needed:

-   Strategic planning assistance to support Friendly's internal brand
    development

-   Development of turn key local store marketing strategies, programs and
    systems

-   New program development and recommendations

-   Project management and proactive development assistance

-   Visual Events office support

CREATIVE DESIGN

The monthly retainer will include the initial creative direction on the
national Friendly's promotional windows for the year (e.g., approximately six
(6) food and three (3) ice cream promotions) and a reasonable amount of test
programs in support of anticipated national promotional campaigns. Design
revisions, mechanicals, illustrations, photography, printing, etc. for the
national windows will be invoiced based on approved budgets. All other
projects will be billed based on submitted budgets. Costs to be invoiced will
include the following:

- Design                        - billed via approved budget

- Design revisions              - billed via approved budget

- Mechanical production         - billed via approved budget

- Printing                      - billed via approved budget

- Illustration                  - billed via approved budget

- Photography                   - billed via approved budget

- Shipping/courier              - billed at actual costs

CONFIDENTIALITY
Visual Events has previously signed a confidentiality agreement with Friendly's
Ice Cream Corp.

The retainer will start July 1, 1999 and will continue until canceled by either
party with 90 days written notice. All invoices are to be paid net 30 days.


Approved: /s/Richard L. Couch     Approved: /s/Scott Colwell 6/12/99
          --------------------              ------------------------
          Richard L. Couch                  Scott Colwell
          President                         Vice President Marketing
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

SCOTT ALEX COPLEN, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-1481

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-01881-MJW)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 2, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-1481 Document: 01019379350 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6262** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. HERMAN MANDELL BROWN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. ( 4:00

- cr - 00015

- H

- 2; 4:14

- cv - 00006

- H )

Submitted : April 24, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYE R, SHEDD , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Herman Mandell Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Herman Mandell Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Brown’s counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation in Brown’s pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding . This court may exerci se jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Brown seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the mater ials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Dormire and Others *v.*Cogly.

A plea to a writ of error of the bankruptcy of the plaintiff, showing that the judgment was rendered after he was declared a bankrupt, is insufficient.

The right of a judgment-plaintiff by law to take out a *jft. fa.*within a certain time, cannot be affected by a subsequent statute.

ERROR to the *Union*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

Dormiré, *Ward,*and *Rose,*the plaintiffs in error, moved the Circuit Court at the *September*term, 1842, to set aside a *fieri facias*which had been issued against them in favour of *Cogly.*The motion was founded on an affidavit of *Dormiré,*stating that on the 13th of *September,*1841, *Cogly*obtained judgment by confession against *Dormiré*and *Ward*for 302 dollars and 56 cents in debt, and 3 dollars and 50 cents in damages, with costs; that *Rose*entered himself replevin-bail therein for the payment of the judgment within six months; that *Cogly*or his attorney indorsed on the record that specie or its equivalent was required, and refused to receive paper bankable in the state bank; -that the legislature, by an act of the 29th of *January,*1842, gave an additional stay of execution for one year, where the plaintiff demanded specie and refused such paper as aforesaid; that the defendants to avail themselves of the benefit of said act, procured *Rose*to acknowledge himself, on the 29th of *MarJk,*1842, on the judgment aforesaid, willing to continue bail therein for one year, specie being required; that in *April,*1842, *Cogly*struck from the record his demand requiring specie or its equivalent, and on the 17th of *April*following took out the execution in question. To the motion founded on this affidavit the parties appeared, the motion was overruled, and judgment rendered in favour of *Cogly*for costs.

Writ of error by *Dormiré, Ward,*and *Rose.*

*178*J. B. Sleith*and *C. H. Test,*for the plaintiffs.

*J. S. Newman,*for the defendant.

Plea ¡n t)ar 0f the writ of error, that on the 25th of *May,*1842, at, &c., *Dormiré,*one of the plaintiffs in error, exhibited his petition in, &c., for the benefit of the bankrupt law; that in *July,*1842, it was decreed that he was a bankrupt; and that on the 21st of *November*following, he was discharged from his previously contracted debts. Demurrer to the plea and joinder.

We think the plea is bad for this reason if no other, that the judgment removed by the writ of error was rendered after *Dormiré*was declared a bankrupt.

There is no error in the refusal of the Court to set aside the execution. *Cogly,*by the laws in force previously to the act of 1842, had a right to take out the execution at the time it issued; and said act, giving a further stay of execution, could not affect that right. *Bronson*v. *Kinzie,*1 Howard, *311.*— M‘Cracken v. *Hayward,*2 *id. 608.*— Gantly’s *Lessee*v. *Ewing,*3 *id.*707.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
## THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS Arrsnnr.T~~~~ 78711

November 12, 1973
The Honorable Joe Resweber. CountyAttorney Harris County Courthouse Houston, Texas 77002

Dear Mr. Resweber: Opinion No. H- 146 Re: Is the County Clerk required to record a certified copy ofa Limited Partnership Certificate recorded in the office ofthe Secretary ofState of Rhode Island?
Your opinion request advises thatthe County Clerk of Harris County was requested tofile a certificate of limited partnership executed and filed in the State ofRhode Island under that state’s Uniform Limited Partnership Act. The subject partnership expects to do business in Texas as a limited partnership, butdoes not plan toqualify with the Texas Secretary of State as a Texas Limited partnership. Article 6132a, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, The Uniform Limited Partnership Act. The county clerk desires 

### an opinion as towhether he is required to record a certified copy of the certificate filed in Rhode Island. Article 6591, V. T. C.S., provides 

### as follows:

“County clerks shall be the recorders for their respective counties; they shall provide and keep in their offices well boundbooka inwhich they shall record all instruments ofwriting authorized or required to be recorded in the county clerkls office in the mannerhereinafter provided. ” The instruments subject to recording are listed in various statutes compiled in Chapter 3of Title 115, Articlea 6624 through 6646, V. T. C.S. None of

p. 687The Honorable Joe Resweber, page 2 (H-146)

these statutes authorizes or requires the county clerk to record limited partnership agreements; No cases are directly in point, but theholdings of related cases militate against recording instruments not mentioned in these statutes. In Pegram v. Owens, 64 Tex. 475 (1885), the Supreme Court construed an informal partnership dissolution agreement wherein Pegram first gave to Owens all claims belonging to the partnership. The Supreme Court allowed the recording ofthe instrument because ofits last provision, butexpressed doubtthat the first provision alone would have been recordable. InFarmers and Merchants’ State Bank ofRanger vi Tullos, 211S.W. 847 (Tex. Civ. App., El Paso, 1919, nowrit), the court stated thatanassignment of lease money rentals is “not a deed, conveyance, or instrument concerning lands or tenements, withinthe meaning ofthe registration statute. I’ Even if the County Clerk did file the agreement, we doubtthatits recording would constitute notice to the public ofits contents or effect. Accordingly, we believe that the clerk is notrequired tofile the outof-state limited partnership agreemht. SUMMARY The County Clerk of Harris County is not required to record 

### a certified copy ofa limited partnership agreement recorded in the office ofthe Secretary ofState of another state. /\Very truly yours, 

# u Attorney General of Texas

p. 688The Honorable Joe Resweber, page 3 (H-146)

APPRO,VED:

I\

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee .,

p. 689

-
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2056

___________________________

Yufan Zhang lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. UnitedHealth Group; Sujatha Duraimanickam lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: December 23, 2021 Filed: December 29, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. In this employment discrimination action, Yufan Zhang appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to vacate an arbitration award. After careful review of

1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal.

See Ploetz for Laudine L. Ploetz, 1985 Tr. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, 894 F.3d 894, 897 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review). Accordingly we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.47B. We also deny Zhang’s pending motions.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,031
<SECURITIES>                                     1,991
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                       164
<INVENTORY>                                     16,756
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,342
<PP&E>                                           3,404
<DEPRECIATION>                                     973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,137
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,552
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,833
<SALES>                                          6,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,835
<CGS>                                            4,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,032
<INCOME-TAX>                                       280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                752
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       752
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 8.1
 List of Subsidiaries
 Ownership interestParticulars
    
    Country of incorporation
    
    
    2010(%)
    
    
    2009(%)
    
    
    2008(%)Significant subsidiariesSify Software Limited
    
    India
    
    
    100
    
    
    
    100
    
    
    
    100Sify International Inc
    
    US
    
    
    100
    
    
    
    100
    
    
    
    100Sify Technologies
(Singapore) Pte Limited
    
    Singapore
    
    
    100
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Addendum (the  "Addendum") is made effective as of the 15th day of
December,  1999 and is intended  to amend a certain  Employment  Agreement  (the
"Agreement")  by and  between  Erie  Indemnity  Company  and  Philip  A.  Garcia
effective as of December 16, 1997.

         WHEREAS,  the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of
the Company  and its  Shareholders  to secure the  continued  employment  of the
Executive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS,  the Board of Directors of the Company at its meeting of March
9,  1999  agreed  to extend  the term of the  Agreement  for a period of one (1)
additional  year which  extended the term of the Agreement to expire on December
15, 2000 instead of December 15, 1999; and

         WHEREAS,  the Board of  Directors  of the  Company  at its  meeting  of
December  14, 1999 has again  agreed to extend the term of the  Agreement  for a
period of one (1) additional year as contained herein; and

         WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree
         as follows:

         1. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement with respect  to the  Term is  hereby
amended by extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2001.

         2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force
and effect.

ATTEST:                                              ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY


/s/ Mark T. Torok                         By:  /s/ F. William Hirt
    Mark T. Torok                                  F. William Hirt
     Assistant Secretary                            Chairman of the Board


WITNESS:

/s/ Cori Coccarelli                            /s/ Philip A. Garcia
    Cori Coccarelli                                Philip A. Garcia
                                                   786 Stockbridge Drive
                                                   Erie, PA   16505

                                       71
Exhibit
23.1














CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM














Board of
Directors


Telkonet,
Inc.


Germantown,
MD








We
consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Registration No. 333-142986, 333-148731, 333-114425, 333-129950,
333-137703, 333-141069, 333-138001) on Form S-3 of Telkonet, Inc. and
its subsidiaries of our reports dated March 31. 2008, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Telkonet, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of losses,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the three-years ended December 31,
2006, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report
on Form 10-K of Telkonet, Inc. and its subsidiaries.








/s/ RBSM
LLP


RBSM
LLP


Certified
Public Accountants








McLean,
Virginia


March 31,
2008
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1929

AN ACT

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to extend

the mental health benefits parity provisions for an additional year.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mental Health Parity

5 Reauthorization Act of 2003’’.
 †

2

S 1929 ES

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF MENTAL HEALTH PROVISIONS.

2 (a) ERISA.—Section 712(f) of the Employee Retire3 ment Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1185a(f))

4 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘December 31, 2004’’.

6 (b) PHSA.—Section 2705(f) of the Public Health

7 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–5(f)) is amended by strik8 ing ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31,

9 2004’’.

Passed the Senate November 21, 2003.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1929

AN ACT

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service

Act to extend the mental health benefits parityprovisions for an additional year.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 15, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LEO SIMMONS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. 

H. BRILL, Warden; PHILLIPS,

Chairperson; MINDEE MITCHELL;

ANGELA MORELAND; MERCHANT,

C/O; FRAZIER, C/O; DOWD, C/O;

DELGADO, C/O,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1109

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01202-MSK)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1 and 3.3(B).

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1109 Document: 01018457759 Date Filed: 07/15/2010 Page: 1
# Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATON OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics,
Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, (theReport), I,
William P. Hales, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, 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/ William P. Hales
William P. Hales 
President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)

August 13, 2004

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

21