alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30566

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAMION S. LYONS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(00-CR-150-ALL-N)

January 8, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of,

with intent to distribute, cocaine, Damion S. Lyons appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession

and other evidence obtained by law enforcement officers during his

apprehension and arrest. He contends that the district court erred

in crediting the testimony of the law enforcement officers and,

therefore, that its factual findings were clearly erroneous. 
Because the district court’s factual findings rested on its

credibility assessment of Lyons and the law enforcement officers,

its factual findings are accorded “special deference”. See

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574-75 (1985);

United States v. Castro, 166 F.3d 728, 731 (5th Cir.)(en banc),

cert. denied, 528 U.S. 827 (1999). Lyons must demonstrate that the

officers’ version of the events was incoherent or facially

implausible, contradicted by extrinsic evidence, or internally

inconsistent. See United States v. Gillyard, 261 F.3d 506, 509

(5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 841 (2002). Although

Lyons attempts to discredit the officers’ account of the events, he

falls short of satisfying the highly deferential standard of review

applicable to the district court’s findings.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the Annual Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Michael S. Fields, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.01, 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 Registrant.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: April 29, 2008 |  | /s/ MICHAEL S. FIELDS  
|                      |  | Michael S. Fields      
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### *A.*Cleary *v.*John G. Offutt.

Bill of Exceptions — Practice.

Unless a rejected pleading is made part of tbe record by bill of particulars or order of tbe court tbe clerk bas no right to copy it in a transcript and .it will not be considered by tbe appellate court.

APPEAL FROM SPENCER CIRCUIT COURT.

April 28, 1876.

*T. J. Barker, for appellant. J. H. Beauchamp, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The answer which appellant proposed to file is not made a part of the record. A paper purporting to be a copy thereof was incorporated in the record by the clerk, but that paper cannot be considered by this court. Unless a rejected pleading is made a part of the record, by order of court, or bill of exception, the clerk has no right to copy it in a transcript intended for this court. We cannot therefore determine whether or not appellant had a just or legal ground of defense, or that he was other than a nominal party to the action.

Besides, his affidavit states merely that he was kept away from court by sickness. He does not state that he or any one of his family was sick, nor that he was unable to get to the court house, or that any one was sick enough to need his attention.

The action of the circuit court in refusing to set aside the judgment was proper.

Judgment *affirmed.*
### 346



### ganordle 0. 3. s. Ellingrral, p8@ e

*f would llka **to** how whetherthis is aorraot, whether I have a rQht to restor.his lost time and dlsoharga

him from this instlttatlon. And if so, whether,

we owe him $SO.OOin oash an+ the prssorlbedolotihlng.~ Y o u rlnt a rpr e t a ti o n **or tha**  llt u a ti o n I s oorr ee t. miash of the oomp@nant

quostlons

embodiedIn tha last **para** graph of your **answer** should **br** answeredin the aftlrmativa.

The questions involved are oonoludsd

**by** ~our\,oplnion no. O-li?Sd,

being Confermwe opinion 3094, a aopy OS whichwa hand you harawlth.

-' diik%AN!- ATTORNEY GENERAL 

### w
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29502]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, 
December 18, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has 
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: December 11, 2014.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29502 Filed 12-12-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[Exhibit 32.2]

                    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
II,  Inc.  (the "Company") on  Form 10-KSB for the period  ending
April  30,  2001  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
Treasurer 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, Treasurer
                                 BF Acquisition Group II, Inc.
*

Honorable Joan A. Lenard, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by

designation. 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 97-9006.

William S. HILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Jacqueline H. BARRETT, Sheriff, Fulton County, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Sept. 21, 1998

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:97-CV-276-

RCF); Richard C. Freeman, Judge.

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and LENARD*

, District Judge.

HATCHETT, Chief Judge:

This case is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned

order dated July 2, 1997, and cited as 968 F.Supp. 1564 (N.D.Ga.1997).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
4.1


 


Use of
Capital Supplemental Agreement


(Unofficial
English Translation Solely for Convenience)


 


Capital Lender: Shandong SNTON Optical
Materials Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Shandong SNTON”)


Capital Borrower: Fuwei Films (Shandong)
Co., Ltd. (the “Fuwei Shandong”)


 


On April 2, 2014, Fuwei Shandong entered
into a Use of Capital Agreement with Shandong SNTON pursuant to which the parties agreed that Shandong SNTON will provide Fuwei
Shandong with a loan for a total amount of RMB105,000,000 to pay off certain short-term loans due to Bank of Communications Co.,
Ltd. The interest shall be calculated at the benchmark rate, plus an additional 20% of the said benchmark rate, for the loan of
the same term announced by the People’s Bank of China. The interest must be paid quarterly and settled in full at the end
of the year. Fuwei Shandong has agreed to repay the said amount of RMB105,000,000 upon obtaining a loan from Bank of Communications
Co., Ltd. or through other financing means.


 


Considering the unavailability of obtaining
loans from banks or other financial institutions and the current financial status of Fuwei Shandong, the two parties entered into
a Supplemental Agreement as set forth below:


		1.	As of December 31, 2014, Fuwei Shandong shall repay the principle of this loan plus interest at
a total amount of RMB110,476,600.



		2.	Fuwei Shandong shall pay Shandong SNTON interest which shall be calculated at the benchmark rate,
plus an additional 20% of the said benchmark rate, for the loan of the same term announced by the People’s Bank of China.



		3.	Fuwei Shandong has agreed to repay the principle of this loan plus interest upon obtaining a loan
from Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. or through other financing means.



		4.	This agreement is in duplicates and each party holds one copy.



 


 


Shandong SNTON Optical Materials Technology
Co., Ltd. (chop)


 


Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (chop)


 


 


 


Date: March 9, 2015.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1617 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1617

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to add physical 
  therapists to the list of providers allowed to utilize locum tenens 
                      arrangements under Medicare.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2023

   Mr. Bilirakis (for himself, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Ms. 
   DelBene, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Soto, Mr. 
 Fitzpatrick, Mr. Kildee, Mr. LaTurner, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Westerman, Mr. 
  Grijalva, Mr. Bost, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Mann, Mr. Neguse, Mr. Johnson of 
South Dakota, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Van Drew, 
    and Mr. Ruppersberger) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to add physical 
  therapists to the list of providers allowed to utilize locum tenens 
                      arrangements under Medicare.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prevent Interruptions in Physical 
Therapy Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWING PHYSICAL THERAPISTS TO UTILIZE LOCUM TENENS 
              ARRANGEMENTS UNDER MEDICARE.

    (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 1842(b)(6) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(6)) is amended by striking ``, 
and (J)'' and all that follows through ``physicians' services furnished 
by physicians.'' and inserting ``, and (J) in the case of outpatient 
physical therapy services furnished by physical therapists, 
subparagraph (D) of this sentence shall apply to such services and 
therapists in the same manner as such subparagraph applies to 
physicians' services furnished by physicians.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to items and services furnished after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Wolverine Exploration Inc. - Exhibit 10.2 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com





DEBT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AGREEMENT, made and dated for reference the * day
of *, *. 

BETWEEN: 


	
      WOLVERINE EXPLORATION INC., a company duly
      incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada and having an
      office at 4055 McLean Road, Quesnel, BC, V2J 6V5. 

	  
	(hereinafter called the “Company”)




OF THE FIRST PART 

AND: 

*. 

(hereinafter called the
“Creditor”) 

OF THE SECOND PART 

WHEREAS: 

A.          
The Company is indebted to the Creditor in the amount of USD $* as of the date
hereof (the Debt”); and 

B.          
The Creditor has agreed to accept common shares in the capital stock of the
Company in lieu of payment of the debt.

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in
consideration of the premises and of the covenants, conditions and provisos
herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto
agree as follows: 

1.          
The Creditor hereby agrees to accept, subject to paragraph 2 hereof, * fully
paid and non-assessable common shares in the capital of the Company (the
“Shares”) in lieu of payment of the Debt by the Company at a deemed issuance
price of USD $0.01 per Share. 

2.          
The Creditor acknowledges that the issuance of the Shares as contemplated by
paragraph 1 of this Agreement is subject to compliance with applicable
securities laws. Further, the Creditor acknowledges that the certificates
representing the Shares will contain a restrictive legend inhibiting the ability
of the Creditor to trade such shares until the expiry of a six month hold
period.




- 2 -

3.          
This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties
hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 

4.          
This Agreement shall be governed, construed and enforced according to the laws
of the Province of British Columbia and is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction
of the courts of the Province of British Columbia. 

5.          
The parties agree to execute such further documents and assurances as may be
required to effect the intent hereof. 

6.          
The Creditor agrees to abide by the provisions of applicable securities laws in
the disposition of any Shares of the Company acquired pursuant to this
Agreement. 

7.          
The Creditor and the Company may execute this Agreement in two or more
counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original and all of which
constitute one agreement, effective as of the date first above written. 


	WOLVERINE EXPLORATION INC. 
	  
	  
	  
	Richard Haderer 
	 
	 
	 
	*
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Peter R. Huntsman, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Huntsman International LLC for the year ended December 31, 2003;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 30, 2004

| |  | /s/ PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### Ernest A. Cardozo, as Sole Surviving Trustee, etc., Appellant, *v.*Ella A. Borden, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 27, 1925.

Landlord and tenant — lease — notice from landlord to tenant indicating election to terminate lease of premises as of certain date and increasing rent does not operate as renewal of lease.

A notice from a landlord electing to terminate a lease as of a certain date and . indicating that after that date the rent, will be increased does not operate as a renewal of the lease, particularly where the evidence discloses that a large part of the premises is leased to various subtenants and that the premises are not actually being occupied by the tenant.

Appeal by landlord from final order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District, in favor of the tenant, dismissing the landlord’s petition at the end. of the landlord’s case, after trial by the court with a jury.

*Sidney B. Cardoso [Edward S. Qreenbaum*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Bloomberg & Bloomberg [Harry A. Bloomberg*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

The tenant holding under a lease received a notice from the landlord electing to terminate the lease on October 1, 1924. It contained a further provision that after that date the rent or the rental value would be $4,500 per year. The tenant refused to vacate and claims that the notice operated as a renewal of the lease. There is no basis whatever for such a claim. The tenant also rests upon the rent laws and the landlord counters by showing indisputably that a large part of the premises is rented out to various subtenants for various purposes and that the premises are not really being occupied by the tenant. The judgment dismissing the petition is clearly wrong and must be reversed. *(Davies*v. *Aylan,*123 Misc. 932; *Nystad & Krassner, Inc.,*v. *Zerbe,*210 App. Div. 217.)

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, McCook and Proskauer, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

y0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139215(43) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139215 

 COA: 284097 

Oakland CC: 2007-215314-FH 

MONTE ALEXANDER STITT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 26, 

2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
Deloitte & Touche (LOGO)

Deloitte & Touche LLP                  Telephone: (973) 683-7000
Two Hilton Court                       Facsimile: (973) 683-7459
P.O. Box 319
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054-0319

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

Cendant Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined  management's  assertion about Cendant  Mortgage  Corporation's
(the "Company")  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards  identified in
the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program
for  Mortgage  Bankers  (USAP) as of and for the year ended  December  31,  1999
included in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for
the Company's compliance with those standards.  Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance based on our
examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 1999, is fairly stated in all material respects.

Deloitte & Touche
January 28, 2000


Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (LOGO)