alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MARCUS ORLANDO TATE, : 

a/k/a MARCUS ORLANDO TAITE, 

a/k/a DR. ELIJAH JOSHUA : 

MUHAMMAD, II, a/k/a DRELIJAH 

JOSHUA MUHAMMAD, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0211-WS-N 

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS, et al., : 

Defendants. : 

 

 JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby 

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g). 

DONE this 27th day of July, 2010. 

 

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00211-WS-N Document 9 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29409]



[[Page 74767]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--American Society of Mechanical Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 6, 2014, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (``ASME'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development 
activities. 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, since April 
30, 2014, ASME has established one new consensus committee, initiated 
two new standards activities and withdrawn three published standards 
within the general nature and scope of ASME's standards development 
activities, as specified in its original notification. More detail 
regarding these changes can be found at www.asme.org.
    On September 15, 2004, ASME 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 October 13, 2004 (69 FR 60895).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 2, 2014. 
A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) 
of the Act on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32998).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-29409 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7819

LARRY KEITH GREEN, a/k/a Said Abdullah Hakim,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CARLTON B. 

JOYNER; TRESA BROWN TOMLINSON; BOBBY W. MARSHALL; G. 

BLACKMAN; H. CLAY; SERGEANT STRICKLAND; D. STANLEY; J. 

MARTIN, Governor; T. GULLEY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COBB; 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PRATT; B. TALLY; JOSEPH UMESI; CARMEN 

HENDRICKS; HOPE SMITH; D. STRICKLAND; JOHN ASLETT; M.

REYNOLDS; P. DAVIS; W. LUNSFORD; THOMAS TART,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:11-ct-03175-BO)

Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Keith Green, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Keith Green appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without 

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012), and denying 

his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Green v. North Carolina 

Dep’t of Corr., No. 5:11-ct-03175-BO (E.D.N.C. June 26 & 

Oct. 29, 2013). 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
**Exhibit10.14**

 

 

**Gaiam,Inc.**

**ExecutiveOfficer Compensation**

 
| **Name**       | ** ** | **Title**                                      | ** ** | **Annual  Base Salary** |
|----------------|------------|------------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------|
| Jane Pemberton |       | President of GT Media and Gaiam Trade Decision |       | $                       | 300,000 |
|           |       |                                           |       |                    |
| Lou Weiss      |       | President of Direct, GT Media                  |       | $                       | 285,000 |

 

Ms. Pemberton will receive a bonus of $150,000 during her first year ofservice, to be paid in equal installments on May 1, 2007 and December 1,2007.  Thereafter, she may receive abonus of up to 50% of salary, with the award being determined by reference to amatrix of possible performance levels based on Gaiam’s achievement of revenueand pre-tax earnings objectives under Gaiam’s financial plan.  Ms. Pemberton will also be reimbursed for upto $25,000 of moving expenses, she will receive a monthly housing/cost ofliving allowance of $5,000, and she received options to purchase 75,000 sharesof Gaiam Class A common stock.  Ms.Pemberton will be entitled to a severance payment of $60,000 if terminatedwithout cause.

 

Mr. Weiss may receive a bonus of up to 50% of salary, with the awardbeing determined by reference to a matrix of possible performance levels basedon Gaiam’s achievement of revenue and pre-tax earnings objectives under Gaiam’sfinancial plan.  Mr. Weiss’ bonus for the12 months ending September 30, 2006 is guaranteed to be at least $27,500quarterly.  In addition, Mr. Weissreceived a bonus of $25,000 upon the closing of Gaiam’s acquisition of certainassets of GoodTimes Entertainment and options to purchase 75,000 shares ofGaiam Class A common stock.

 

----
#### E. M. Marshall, et al., *v.*J. M. Meyer.

Arbitration — Parties to Action — Waiver of Capacity of Surety.

Where an action to arbitrate is brought by heirs instead of by administrator, and defendant pleads to the merits and afterwards agrees to submit the cause to a master to audit and settle the accounts between the parties, and fails to demur on the ground of want of capacity to sue, he waives his right to object to such capacity thereafter. See Civil Code, §§ 120, 121, 122.

APPEAL PROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT.

June 30, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The parties to this litigation agreed in writing to submit the matters of difference between them to arbitrators named in the *18writing. They met at the time and place agreed upon with' the arbitrators, and appellee entered upon the investigation without any objection to. the legal capacity of appellants to assert the claim against him.

*VanWinkle & Rodes, for appellants.*

*C. C. Fox, for appellee.*

After the award was made, this action was brought upon the writing to submit, and appellee, instead of filing a demurrer to the petition on the ground that the administrator, and not the heirs of Mrs. Marshall, should sue, answered, and denied an indebtedness to appellants, and insisted that he was entitled to credits to a large amount which the arbitrators had failed to allow him, and for which he. then professed to produce the vouchers; and by consent the cause was transferred to the equity docket, and by agreement of the parties it was referred to the master to audit and settle the accounts between them.

Mrs. Marshall had been dead about sixteen years when the parties entered into the agreement to arbitrate their matters; and the presumption would arise from the lapse of time, that her debts, if there were any outstanding against her when she died, had been paid, and what remained of the personalty belonged to her heirs. But if that were not so, and the personal representative was the proper person to enter into the arbitration and to bring the suit, appellee waived all such objections, first, by his written agreement to arbitrate these differences with appellants, and second, by answering to the merits and failing to demur to the petition, on the specific ground of want of legal capacity in appellants to sue. §§ 120, 121, 122, Civil Code. But besides all this, it appears in the record that the parties, by agreement, had the cause transferred to the equity docket, and it was then by the consent of the parties, referred to the master to hear the evidence, and to audit and state the accounts between them, thus, in effect, setting aside the award, and agreeing that the chancellor should take jurisdiction of the case, and settle their rights according to the principles of equity. The court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the controversy; and after the parties had made the agreements herein recited, the court below erred in dismissing the petition.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded, with directions to proceed to adjudicate the rights of the parties upon the preparation and evidence in the case, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
1

 Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 22) which is construed by the Court as an

Objection to the Report & Recommendation.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDERICK H. LANGE, III, : 

 :

Petitioner, : 

 :

v. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0093-KD-M 

 :

WARDEN HETZEL, : 

 :

Respondent. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and a de novo determination

of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made,1

 the Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated June 4, 2010, is ADOPTED as

the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that this petition be DENIED as time-barred and that this action be

DISMISSED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 17th day of June 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DUBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00093-KD-M Document 23 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 report of Activeworlds Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sean Deson, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

          (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/ Sean Deson
                        --------------
                        Sean Deson
                        Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                        Date:  April 14, 2003
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

June 30, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 04-11424 Summary Calendar

_______________



### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS



### ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS



### J OHN 

### T HOMAS 

### T ELLO



### ,

DefendantThird Party PlaintiffAppellant,

VERSUS



### H AROLD 

### E AVENSON



### , S HERIFF

, R OCKWALL C OUNTY

, T EXAS

, AND C USTODIAN OF J OHN T HOMAS T ELLO

,



### Third Party DefendantAppellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas



### m 3:04-CV-1718-N

______________________________2

Before D AVIS , S MITH , and S TEWART

, Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : *

John Tello pleaded guilty in Texas state court to two counts of indecency with a child by exposure and one count of poss ession of child pornography. Adjudication of guilt was deferred, and Tello was sentenced to concurren t five-year terms of deferred-adjudication probation.

When the state moved to revoke probation

an d for adjudication of guilt, Tello removed
the case t o federal court and sought habeas

corpus r elief. The federal district court remanded and denied the habeas application.
Tello filed a notice of appeal and motions to supplement the record on appe al and to stay the state proceedings.

Although the district court referr ed to the
abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris

, 401
U.S. 37 (1971), it c orrectly noted the lack of
federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Moreover,
it is plain that “federal jurisdiction never existed.” B ogle v. Phi llips Petroleum Co. , 24
F.3d 758, 762 (5th Cir. 1 994). The state action against Tello was a continuation of his

state criminal action. S ee McClendon v. State

, 784 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex App. 

### S S Houston [14th Di st .] 1990, pet. ref’d) (holding that
d eferred adjudication of guilt is “par t and parcel” of t h e original criminal plea proceeding); T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P. ar t. 42.12 § 5(b). Except in rare cases involving federal defendants or the lik elihood of equal-protection problems not applicable here, there is no j urisdictional basis for the removal of a sta t e criminal proceeding.

Because the district c o urt lacked jurisdiction and did not “clearly and affirmat ively” rely

on a basis for removal other than a lack of jurisdiction, this co urt lacks jurisdiction to
review the remand order. S ee Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank , 231 F.3d 994,
997 (5th Cir. 2000); Bogle

, 24 F.3d at 761; 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d). The remand order will stand. The appeal is DISMISSED.

Abs e nt jurisdiction, the district court’s ruling on Tello’s habeas corpus application is
void. S ee Bogle

, 24 F.3d at 762. All o f
Tello’s motions are DENIED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except u nder the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), or his or her successor, the authorities vested in the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Section 377E (a) of the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act, (Pub. L. 113-51), which amends the Public Health Service Act to require development and                           ( print page 71426)                        publication of criteria for the conduct of research relating to transplantation of organs from donors infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) into individuals who are infected with HIV before receiving such organ.                

These authorities may be redelegated. Exercise of this authority shall be in accordance with established policies, procedures, guidelines, and regulations as prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary retains the authority to submit reports to Congress and promulgate regulations.

I hereby affirm and ratify any actions taken by the Director, NIH, or his or her subordinates, which involved the exercise of the authorities delegated herein prior to the effective date of the delegation.

Dated: November 25, 2014.

Sylvia M. Burwell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-28406 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN ANTHONY VUKAS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) Civil Action No. 08-0536-CG-N 

 ) 

JAMES LACKEY, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

JUDGMENT 

 In accordance with the court=s memorandum opinion and order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT be and is hereby entered in favor 

defendant, James Lackey, and against plaintiff, John Anthony Vukas. Therefore, all plaintiff=s 

claims against the defendant are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs are to be 

taxed against the plaintiff. 

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00536-CG-N Document 35 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 1
| 1.   | The Form 10-Q 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 |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 13, 2010 | /s/ Joseph D. Reid                                                                                  Joseph D. ReidChief Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
---



Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
 hereof (the "Report"), I, Rick L. Wessel, 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 my knowledge:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  May 8, 2007



/s/ Rick L. WesselRick L. Wessel
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
 
CORESTATES FINANCIAL CORP AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 12.2

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS
TO FIXED CHARGES OF CONTINUING OPERATIONS

COMBINED CORESTATES (PARENT ONLY) AND CORESTATES CAPITAL CORPORATION

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 1995
-------------------------------------
<S>                                                                        <C>       
1. Income before income taxes, equity in undistributed income                        
   of subsidiaries and cumulative effect of change in accounting                     
   principle...........................................................    $313,581  
                                                                                     
2. Fixed charges - interest expense, amortization of                                 
   debt issuance costs and one-third of rental expenses, net of                      
   income from subleases...............................................     179,283  
                                                                           --------  
                                                                                     
3. Income before taxes, equity in undistributed income of                            
   subsidiaries and cumulative effect of change in accounting                         
   principle, plus fixed charges.......................................    $492,864  
                                                                           ========  
                                                                                     
4. Ratio of earnings (as defined) to fixed charges (line 3/                         
   line 2)............................................................        2.75x 
                                                                              ====   
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group
III, Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period  ending
April  30,  2002  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                                   /s/ William Colucci
                                   ------------------------------
                                   William Colucci, President
                                   BF Acquisition Group III, Inc.