alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derck GILLIS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-4548.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 10, 2004.

Decided Dec. 29, 2004.

Alan H. Yamamoto, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Avner Shapiro, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*296Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Derek Gillis appeals from the revocation of his supervised release. His sole issue on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding that he possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute it. We do not find that the district court abused its discretion by finding that Gillis violated his supervised release in this manner. *United States v. Copley,*978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir.1992). This court does not review credibility determinations on appeal. *United States v. Burgos,*94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir.1996). Accordingly, we affirm Gillis’ conviction. 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999                                    
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                             58,581                      
<SECURITIES>                       0          
<RECEIVABLES>                      8,853                
<ALLOWANCES>                       1,553                 
<INVENTORY>                        416                   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   87,610                
<PP&E>                             4,397                
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,114                
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     94,885                
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              58,068                
<BONDS>                            0                
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              115,782                
<PREFERRED>                        0                
<COMMON>                           7,682                
<OTHER-SE>                         (87,921)                
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       94,885                
<SALES>                            28,002                
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   28,002                
<CGS>                              26,945                
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      26,945                
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   11,896                
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0                
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 12,870           
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (34,458)           
<INCOME-TAX>                       0                
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (34,458)                
<DISCONTINUED>                     0                
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0                
<CHANGES>                          0                
<NET-INCOME>                       (34,458)                
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (2.72)                
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (2.72)                
        


</TABLE>
#### Samuel R. MUSCARELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-50462.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Nov. 23, 2004.

*334David Arthur Wyrick, Law Offices of David Wyrick, New Braunfels, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Clayton R. Diedrichs, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Samuel Muscarella complains that the administrative law judge (ALJ) who heard his disability case did not apply the proper legal standards and that his decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Muscarella appealed the ALJ’s decision to federal district court. The district court judge referred this case to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. After a careful and thorough analysis of the law and the administrative record, the magistrate judge recommended that the ALJ’s decision be affirmed. The district judge adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and entered judgment against Muscarella. We affirm.

In the district court, the only objection Muscarella raised to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge was that the Commissioner, in its briefing, had engaged in “post hoc rationalization” by discussing medical evidence which was in the record but nevertheless was not specifically discussed by the ALJ in his decision. There is no rule that a party in these circumstances is prohibited from discussing evidence in the record unless that evidence is specifically cited or relied upon by the ALJ in his decision. Moreover, such an objection is irrelevant to whether the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is flawed in any way. In short, this objection was devoid of merit.

Failure of the appellant to object to conclusions of law and findings of fact of the magistrate judge limits our review to plain error review. *Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,*79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc). The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation advised Muscarella of the consequences of failure to object and cited *Douglass.*Muscarella does not demonstrate any errors of law or fact that rise to the level of plain error. On the contrary, we agree with the district court that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the correct legal standards were followed.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 10.24**

**EXECUTION COPY**

**EXTENSION OF EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

This EXTENSION OF EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Extension”) is made as of February 28, 2009 by and between Atlantic Broadband Management, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company (the “Company”), and Almis Kuolas (“Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered anExecutive Employment Agreement dated March 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”) which will expire on February 28, 2009; 

WHEREAS the Company andExecutive desire to enter into a new employment agreement; and 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to extend the terms of the Agreement on an interimbasis for a period of six months to allow parties sufficient time to enter a new agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenantscontained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

Section 1. Extension of Employment Period The Employment Period shall be extended for a period of six months, beginning on the date of this Extension, unless terminated earlier under the provisions of Section 5(a) (ii) – (iii) or by execution of a new employment agreement by Company and Executive. The term “fifth anniversary” is amended to read “fifth anniversary plus six months” wherever it appears in theAgreement. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain unamended. 

Section 2. Retroactive Effect The terms and consideration as agreed toby Company and Executive in a new employment agreement to be entered into following the date hereof shall apply retroactively to March 1, 2009. 

Section 3. Capitalized Terms Capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement. 

Section 4.Governing Law. Issues and questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Extension will be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to anychoice of law or conflict of law rules or provisions (whether of the State of Delaware or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of Delaware. In furtherance of the foregoing, theinternal law of the State of Delaware will control the interpretation and construction of this Extension, even though under Delaware’s choice of law or conflict of law analysis, the substantive law of some other jurisdiction would ordinarilyapply. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Extension of Executive Employment Agreement as of the datefirst written above. 

 
ATLANTIC BROADBAND MANAGEMENT, LLCBy: 
 
Name: Title: 
 
Almis Kuolas
Exhibit 4.29
 ELONG, INC.
2009 SHARE AND ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN
    ADSs
 Affiliate IAC
 Applicable Exchange
 Award
 Award Agreement
 Board
 Bonus Award
 Cause




---



##### 



Change in Control
 Code
 Committee
 Company
 Disability
 (n) Disaffiliation
 Eligible Individuals
 Exchange Act
  - 2 -




---



##### 



Fair Market Value
 Free-Standing SAR
 Grant Date
 Incentive Stock Option
 Individual Agreement
 Nonqualified Option
 Option
 Ordinary Shares
 Participant
 Performance Goals
 Plan
 Plan Year
 Restricted Share Units
  - 3 -




---



##### 



Restricted Shares
 Retirement
 Share
 Share Appreciation Right
 Subsidiary
 Tandem SAR
 Term
 Termination of Employment
  - 4 -




---



##### 



Committee Committee
          Procedures.
  - 5 -




---



##### 



Discretion of Committee.
 Award Agreements
  Plan Maximums
 Individual Limits
 Rules for Calculating Shares Delivered
    - 6 -




---



##### 



Adjustment Provision Corporate Transaction Share Change
 Section 409A
  - 7 -




---



##### 



provided however
  Types of Options
 Types and Nature of Share Appreciation Rights
 Tandem SARs
 Exercise Price
  - 8 -




---



##### 



Term
 Vesting and Exercisability
 Method of Exercise provided however
 provided however
   - 9 -




---



##### 



Delivery; Rights of Shareholders
 Termination of Employment
      - 10 -




---



##### 



provided however
 Nontransferability of Options and Share Appreciation Rights provided however
  Nature of Awards and Certificates
   - 11 -




---



##### 



Terms and Conditions
  Restriction Period
   - 12 -




---



##### 



provided however
   Nature of Award
 Terms and Conditions
  Restriction Period
  - 13 -




---



##### 



provided however provided further however
    Determination of Awards
  - 14 -




---



##### 



Payment of Awards
  Impact of Event/Single Trigger
   provided however
  - 15 -




---



##### 



Definition of Change in Control
 Person Outstanding
Company Voting Securities provided however
     - 16 -




---



##### 



Impact of Event/Double Trigger
      - 17 -




---



##### 



Effectiveness Effective Date
 Termination.
 Amendment of Plan
   provided however
  - 18 -




---



##### 



Conditions for Issuance
 Additional Compensation Arrangements
 No Contract of Employment
 Required Taxes
  - 19 -




---



##### 



Limitation on Dividend Reinvestment and Dividend Equivalents
 Designation of Death Beneficiary
 Affiliate Employees
 Governing Law and Interpretation
 Non-Transferability
  - 20 -




---



##### 



Foreign Employees and Foreign Law Considerations
   - 21 -
EXHIBIT 32.1




        Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Thai One On,
Inc. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Evon Au, Chief
Executive Officer of Registrant, hereby 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 and
belief:

   (1)  the annual 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 annual report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.


Date:  June 16, 2005         /s/ Evon Au
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer of
                              Thai One On, Inc., Registrant
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 Annual Report of Creative Supply of New Jersey
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the nine months ending
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carmine Catizone, 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:
            (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.

/s/Carmine Catizone
-----------------------------
Carmine Catizone
Chief Executive Officer

June 15, 2005


        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 Annual Report of Creative Supply of New Jersey
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ending
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Generelli, 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:
            (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.

/s/Daniel Generelli
-----------------------------
Daniel Generelli
Chief Financial Officer

June 15, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             343
<SECURITIES>                                    45,134
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (275)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,415
<PP&E>                                           8,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,645)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,293
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,885
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,416
<SALES>                                         11,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,411
<CGS>                                            3,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (736)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,844
<INCOME-TAX>                                       526
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,318
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GEORGETA MILLER

, Appellant,

v.

FINIZIO & FINIZIO, P.A., PAUL G. FINIZIO

and ANYA E. MACIAS
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 100

[ April 2, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Sandra Perlman , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE09

- 005292

.

Thomas Regnier of Kramer, Green, Zuckerman, Greene & Buchsbaum, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.

Lissette Gonzalez and Scott A. Cole of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C ONNER

, F ORST and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1861
T. P. CRIGLER; NAJIEH R. CRIGLER, Petitioners - Appellants, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 99-9233) Submitted: December 19, 2003 Decided: January 14, 2004 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. P. Crigler and Najieh R. Crigle r, Appellants Pro Se. Steven Wesley Parks, Jonathan Samuel Cohen, John A. Nolet, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: T. P. Crigler and Najieh R. Crigler appeal from the tax court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency in their income taxes for the 1995 tax year and imposing an accuracy-related penalty. We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s memorandum and opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. See Crigler v. Comm’r, IRS , No. 99-9233 (U.S. Tax Ct. May 13, 2003). 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
#### R. Ruhl *v.*City of Louisville.

Trespass — Municipal Corporation Responsible for Tort if Commanded or Sanctioned.

A municipal corporation is responsible for damages for a trespass or other tort, if it commands it to be done or sanctions or approves the act when committed.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 2, 1872.

*579
      *F. G. Danaker, for appellant.*

*Burnett, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

In the agreed statement of facts, it is admitted, in substance and effect, that under an ordinance of the general council, providing for the cleaning of the southern ditch, an important means of drainage in the city of Louisville, the mayor employed hands ditch, which run through the plaintiff’s garden, threw the dirt from the ditch on said plaintiff’s land and the growing crop thereon was covered over and mashed down by it and by the trampling of the hands and that the dirt thrown upon it was allowed to remain there and not removed by said city, all of which was done against the will, and with the remonstrance of plaintiff; that plaintiff was damaged thereby in the sum of $68.70; also, that great quantities of dirt had settled in said ditch by reason of the defective construction thereof. It was also admitted that for the work of the hands so done they were paid off by the city. The county court, before which the case had been taken by appeal, sustained a motion to find and render judgment for the city on the ground that the agreed fact did not constitute a cause of cation, and the only question now to be determined is as to the correctness of that ruling.

The doctrine is stated in *Underwood etc., v. Newport Lyceum,*5 B. M. 129, as we conceive in accordance with correct principles and authority that a corporation is responsible for damages for a trespass or other tort, if it commands it to be consummated or sanctions or approved the act when committed.

This case is, in our opinion, within >this rule, and the judgment is therefore deemed erroneous. The agreement of facts imports both that the city authorities authorized the throwing of the dirt from the ditch from the. banks and that they subsequently approved of it.

Wherefore the judgment .is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial and further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*581
      *P. B. & J. B. Thompson, for appellant.*

*Knott, for appellee.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2523
KOJO OKATA, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-661-505) Submitted: January 7, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall Lee Johnson, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Richard Michael Evans, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Laura Marlene Friedman, David V. Bernal, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying relief on his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Okata v. INS , No. A70-661-505 (B.I.A. Aug. 5, 1996). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)





I,
Charles E. Ramey, of US Dataworks, Inc. certify pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(i) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the
“Report”), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





(ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of US Dataworks,
Inc.





Dated:
February 16, 2010




/s/ Charles E.
      RameyCharles
      E. Ramey,
                Chief
      Executive Officer