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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6396

ROBERT DENT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COLIN OTTEY, MD, Regional Medical Director,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED; GILMORE JANICE, 

Supervisor Medical Provider; ROBUSTIANO BARRERA, Medical Provider; 

PEGGY MAHLER, Medical Provider, 

Defendants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (8:15-cv-00206-CCB)

Submitted: September 11, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Robert Dent, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, 

RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Robert Dent appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor 

of Defendant Colin Ottey as to Dent’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claim of deliberate 

indifference to his medical needs.*

 We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Dent v. Ottey, No. 8:15-cv-00206-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 9, 2017); see also Harrods Ltd. v. 

Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing 

requirements to preserve claim that summary judgment was granted prematurely). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * Although Dent’s informal brief also identifies the district court’s March 17, 

2016, order dismissing the action in part and granting summary judgment in part, we 

conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); 

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 176-77 (4th Cir. 2014).
Unassociated Document


    

      Exhibit
        10.28

      Schedule
        Identifying Similar Dilutive Promissory Notes

      


      


      The
        below
        described notes are in the form of the Promissory Note set forth in Exhibit
        10.26 above. 

      


      
        	
                 

                Date
                  of Issuance

              	 	
                Original

                Principal
                  Amount

              	 	
                Current

                Maturity
                  Date

              
	 	 	 	 	 
	
                August
                  11, 2005

              	 	
                $10,000

              	 	
                November
                  9, 2005(1)

              
	
                August
                  25, 2005

              	 	
                $25,000

              	 	
                November
                  23, 2005

              
	
                September
                  19, 2005

              	 	
                $10,000

              	 	
                December
                  18, 2005

              
	
                September
                  22, 2005

              	 	
                $20,000

              	 	
                December
                  21, 2005

              
	
                September
                  26 2005

              	 	
                $25,000

              	 	
                December
                  26, 2005

              
	
                November
                  1, 2005

              	 	
                $
                  5,000

              	 	
                January
                  30, 2006

              
	
                November
                  1, 2005

              	 	
                $
                  5,000

              	 	
                January
                  30, 2006

              


      

      ____________

      (1) The
        Company is currently in default on this note.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Swift Energy Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1988-A, Ltd., was in the process
of liquidation as of March 31, 2000 and as such is governed by liquidation basi
accounting.  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Swift Energy Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1988-A, Ltd's statement of net
assets in process of liquidation and statement of operations contained in its
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statement.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         22,261
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               22,370
<PP&E>                                         301,044
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 323,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,339
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        21,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,152
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,022<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                65,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            65,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   65,675
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                               United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Alpha Nutraceuticals, Inc., a California corporation,
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 of Alpha Nutraceuticals, Inc.
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Alpha Nutraceuticals, Inc.


Date: May 15, 2004                     /s/ Louis Paulsen
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Louis Paulsen, Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 15, 2004                     /s/ James Cartmill
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       James Cartmill, Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q
or as a separate disclosure document
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Anthony E. Applebaum, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, certify that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.s Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 3 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  March 11, 2009                                          
|                                                               
|/s/ ANTHONY E. APPLEBAUM                                       
|Anthony E. Applebaum
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
|



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 10.5

$290,000.00                        DEMAND NOTE          Rapid City, South Dakota
                                                               December 23, 1997

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, CONCORDE GAMING CORPORATION ("MAKER"), a Colorado
corporation with its principal place of business at 3290 Lien Street, Rapid
City, South Dakota, promises to pay to the order of BHL CAPITAL CORPORATION
("HOLDER"), a South Dakota corporation with its principal place of business at
3290 Lien Street, P.O. Box 505, Rapid City, South Dakota 57709, on demand in
immediately available funds the sum of Two Million Hundred Ninety Thousand and
No/100 Dollars ($290,000.00) together with interest on the outstanding amount
thereof at the following rate: an annual interest rate of eighteen percent (18%)
which shall be paid monthly on the last day of each month.

         The Maker may prepay this Note in whole or in part at any time without
penalty.

         In the event of default hereunder the undersigned agrees that HOLDER
shall have all rights reserved herein, including all expenses of collection. In
the event that this Note is placed in the hands of attorneys for collection
after default, the undersigned agrees to pay in addition to the principal and
interest, all attorney's fees and collection costs (including attorney's fees
and collection costs incurred in realizing upon any collateral securing this
Note) incurred in collecting any amounts due under this Note.

         The undersigned waives demand, presentment, notice of non-payment,
protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonor.

         The makers, endorsers, sureties and guarantors hereof hereby severally
waive presentment for payments, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of
protest. The payment schedule may be extended at the option of HOLDER of this
note.

         The undersigned hereby severally agree to pay all costs for any
collections necessary.

                                       CONCORDE GAMING CORPORATION
                                       (MAKER)
                                       By:  David L. Crabb
                                       Its: Treasurer

                                       Signature: /s/ David L. Crabb
                                                  ------------------------------

                                       BHL CAPITAL CORPORATION
                                       (HOLDER)
                                       By:  Kenneth Berger
                                       Its: Executive Vice President

                                       Signature: /s/ Kenneth Berger
                                                  ------------------------------
10653.

#### Southern Paramount Pictures Co. *v.*Gaulding

Jenkins, P. J.

The plaintiff in this case (who was not a servant of the defendant but an employee of an express company) sued for damages on account of alleged personal injuries, alleging that upon the invitation of the defendant he entered within its premises and building for the purpose of trucking and removing, by means of its truck and elevator, certain of its goods from the building, to be delivered to the express company for shipment; that while in the act of driving the truck along a narrow hallway and into the defendant’s elevator, “one of said defendant company’s servants, unknown to the plaintiff, *479started said elevator up to tlie fourth floor,” causing the elevator to strike and catch the truck and crushing the plaintiff (who was at the rear of the truck) through the wall of the building, thus inflicting serious bodily injuries. The defendant demurred to the petition generally and specially, contending especially that it was insufficient because it did not state that the servant thus moving the elevator was then and there acting within the scope of his authority. The demurrers were overruled, and the defendant excepted. *Held:*

Decided November 19, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta—Judge Eeid. May 17, 1919.

*King &*Spalding, *John A.*Sibley, for plaintiff in error.

*Arminius*Wright, contra.

1. “Where the owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries occasioned by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.” Civil Code (1910), § 4420.

2. In such a case, in order for the doctrine of respondeat superior to have application, it must appear that the alleged negligent act of the defendant’s servant occurred while he was acting as such servant and within the scope of his employment. 4 Words and Phrases (2d Series), 358; 29 Cye. 477; Manning *v.*Sherman, 110 Me. 332 (86 Atl. 245, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 126, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 89).

3. In this ease the allegation in the petition, that “one of said defendant company’s servants, unknown to the plaintiff, started said elevator up to the fourth floor,” must, when construed in the light of the entire petition, be taken to mean that such servant was the defendant’s servant in thus operating the elevator which plaintiff had been invited to use, and that consequently the act was within the scope of his authority; it being, for example, further charged that the defendant “was negligent in that it *caused*or *allowed*said elevator” to be thus moved by its servant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens, J., eoneurs. Smith, J., disqualified.*
1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2635

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri Charles R. Henderson, also known as * Charles E. Black, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] Charles Henderson, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 6, 2001 Filed: November 13, 2001

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Charles R. Henderson appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Western District of Missouri after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). The district court sentenced Henderson to 180 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Henderson should have r eceived a-2- lower sentence because he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, not to being an armed career offender. Henderson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. To the extent Henderson is arguing that his sentence was too harsh, there is no jurisdictional basis for review. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (grounds for appeal of sentence by defendant). Moreover, the district court did not plainly err in sentencing him as an armed career criminal, because he did not argue below--nor does he argue on appeal--that he is not an armed career criminal, and his prior burglary and aggravated-assault convictions (for which he received multi-year prison sentences) are qualifying convictions. Seeid. §§ 922(g)(1) (prohibiting felons from possessing ammunition or firearms), 924(e)(1) (15-year minimum sentence for person who violates § 922(g) and has 3 previous convictions for “violent felony” or serious drug offense), 924(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) (“violent felony” means any crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year that has as element use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against person of another, or is burglary); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a) (defendant who is subject to enhanced sentence under § 924(e) is “armed career criminal”); DeRoo v. United States , 223 F.3d 919, 926 (8th Cir. 2000) (reviewing for plain error district court’s inclusion of predicate conviction for purposes of Armed Career Criminal Act where inmate did not raise argument below). We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                DESCRIPTION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

         Effective as of May 18, 2005, non-employee directors of Pacific
Ethanol, Inc. (the "Company") receive $1,500 per board meeting attended, in
person or via telephone, in consideration for their services as members of the
Board of Directors. Effective as of May 18, 2005, the Chairman of the Board of
Directors receives $80,000 annually for his services as Chairman of the Board of
Directors. In addition, effective as of May 18, 2005, the Chairman of the Audit
Committee receives a fee of $3,500 for each calendar quarter of service, in
consideration for his services as Chairman of the Audit Committee, which amount
is in addition to the fees payable for attendance at meetings of the Board of
Directors.

         Non-employee directors are reimbursed for certain reasonable and
documented expenses in connection with attendance at meetings of the Board of
Directors and its committees.

         Non-employee directors may also receive options from time to time under
the Company's stock option plans and otherwise.

         The following non-employee directors received grants of non-qualified
stock options in the following amounts to purchase shares of common stock of the
Company:

                    DIRECTOR                                  NO. OF SHARES
                    --------                                  -------------

                    William L. Jones                              50,000

                    Terry L. Stone                                20,000

                    Kenneth J. Friedman                           15,000

                    Frank P. Greinke                              15,000

                    John Pimentel                                 15,000

         In addition, new directors, upon their appointment, are to receive
grants of non-qualified stock options to purchase 15,000 shares of common stock
of the Company.

         The options granted or to be granted shall include the following terms:

         o        The options shall be granted under the Company's 2004 Stock
                  Option Plan (the "2004 Plan") to the extent shares are then
                  available under the 2004 Plan and the grant under the 2004
                  Plan can be made in compliance with applicable securities
                  laws.

         o        The exercise price of the options shall be equal to the Fair
                  Market Value of a share of the Company's common stock as
                  defined in the 2004 Plan.

         o        The expiration date of the options shall be ten years after
                  their date of grant or such earlier date as is provided in the
                  2004 Plan or in the applicable stock option agreements.

         o        The options shall fully vest and become exercisable one year
                  following their date of grant.
#### Charles Winchester v. Robert King.

*Weight of evidence*— Questions *on error.*

The weight and effect of evidence is for the jury to decide.

On error a question not raised below cannot he raised in the Supreme Court.

Error to Bay.

Submitted April 18.

*Decided*April 25.

Replevin. Winchester had made a written contract with King to keep him supplied .for two years with a stock of goods which King was to pay him for at an advance of twenty-five per cent, on the invoice price; besides keeping the goods-, insured for Winchester’s benefit. The contract also provided that the ownership of the goods should remain in Winchester until they were wholly paid fori The contract was made for Winchester by his agent, Mr. Loud, and signed for him by Loud’s attorney, Mr. Gay. King did not have the g.oods insured and gave á chattel mortgage on them to a stranger, whereon Winchester seized them on the writ •of replevin. King testified in his own defence that Gay had had a conversation with him, the effect of which was to do away with the contract and to make a new arrangement under which the goods then on hand were sold to him absolutely. Defendant had judgment on the verdict of the jury.

Affirmed.

*281*A. MoDonell*for appellant.

*Hatch, <& Oooley*for appellee.

Marston, J.

Two questions are raised in this case. *First,*■did the court err in submitting the case to the jury? We think not. The evidence tended to sustain the defendant’s theory, and within the rule laid down in *Conely v. McDonald*40 Mich. 150, the weight and effect thereof were for the jury. *Second,*did Mr. Gray have authority to act in the premises ? There is some evidence tending to show that at one time he acted as agent and this does not seem to have been changed; besides no such question was raised on the trial, and it is too late to raise it here for the first time. *Perrott v. Shearer 17*Mich. 48.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Campbell and Cooley, JJ. concurred.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1541

_____________________________

MICAH SOLOMON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Steven B. Whittington, Judge.

February 5, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Micah Solomon, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.