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

No. 05-7586.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2006.

Decided: June 7, 2006.

*232Patrick Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, William Edward Fitzpatrick, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

*ON REHEARING*

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Edwards appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for return of administratively forfeited property. The district court determined that the notice provided by the Government was constitutionally adequate. We disagree. No attempt was apparently made to serve Edwards with notice of the forfeiture proceeding either in person or at the location at which he was then-incarcerated by federal authorities, despite the facts that (1) he made an initial court appearance in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, the district and division in which the forfeiture proceeding was initiated, on the very day notice of the forfeiture proceeding was sent to the Wayne County Jail in Detroit, an attorney’s address in Detroit, and a residential address in Chicago; (2) he made a second court appearance in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia the very day notice of the forfeiture proceeding was published in *The Wall Street Journal;*and (3) he remained in federal custody during the entire period in which the administrative forfeiture action remained pending. Under these circumstances, we conclude that notice was not reasonably calculated to apprise Edwards of the pendency of the action of forfeiture. *See United States v. Minor,*228 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.2000). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings. 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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*
Exhibit 4.5


 


CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION OF THE


CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION OF


SERIES A-1 CONVERTIBLE PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK


OF


HC2 HOLDINGS, INC.


 


It is hereby certified that:







1.            The name of the corporation is HC2 Holdings, Inc. (the “Corporation”).







2.            The Certificate of Designation of Series A-1 Convertible Participating Preferred Stock of the Corporation, which was filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on September 22, 2014 (the “Certificate of Designation”), is hereby corrected.







3.            The inaccuracy to be corrected in the Certificate of Designation is as follows:







Certain provisions contained in Section 9(a) and Section 10(pp) of the Certificate of Designation erroneously failed to include a reference to the Corporation or to utilize defined terms.







4.            The portion of the instrument in corrected form is as follows:







Clause (B) of the proviso of Section 9(a) of the Certificate of Designation is hereby corrected in its entirety to read as follows:







(B) 100% of the Indebtedness of the Company, the Company’s wholly-owned and, after taking into account the Company’s ownership percentage therein, Non-Wholly Owned Subsidiaries (as well as the liquidation preference of any preferred security ranking senior to the Company’s investment in such entities) shall be taken into account for purposes of determining Indebtedness but not taken into account (i.e., added back) for purposes of determining Net Asset Value, and







The provisos of Section 10(pp) of the Certificate of Designation are hereby corrected in their entirety to read as follows:







provided that for such purposes, (i) the derivative attributable to the conversion feature in any series of preferred stock will not be considered a liability and (ii) the Accrued Value (as well as any accrued Dividends not yet added to the Accrued Value) of the Preferred Shares and the preference amount (including the accrued value and all accrued but unpaid dividends thereon not included in the accrued value) of any other Senior Securities or Parity Securities will be considered Indebtedness of the Company; provided, further that, solely for purposes of determining the Debt/NAV Ratio, the Indebtedness of the Company, the Company’s wholly-owned and, after taking into account the Company’s ownership percentage therein, Non-Wholly Owned Subsidiaries (as well as the liquidation preference of any preferred security ranking senior to the Company’s investment) shall be taken into account for purposes of determining “Debt” (i.e., the numerator) but not taken into account (i.e., added back) for purposes of determining Net Asset Value (i.e., the denominator).







[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]


 











	
Dated:

	
August 5

	
, 2015










	 	
HC2 HOLDINGS, INC.


	 	 	 
	 	
By:

	
/s/ Keith Hladek


	 		
Name: Keith Hladek


		 	
Title:   Chief Operating Officer






 


[Signature Page to Series A-1 Certificate of Correction]
EXHIBIT 11


                                CLX ENERGY, INC.
                       Computation of Net Income Per Share
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  Three months
                                               ended December 31,
                                              --------------------
                                              2000            1999
                                              ----            ----

<S>                                     <C>               <C>
Net income                              $     87,458          31,414
                                          ==========      ==========

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                      10,545,132      10,548,132

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  options                                    166,667          42,857
                                          ----------      ----------

                                          10,711,799      10,590,989
                                          ==========      ==========

 Net income (loss) per share:
    Basic                               $       0.01            0.00
                                          ==========      ==========

    Diluted                             $       0.01            0.00
                                          ==========      ==========

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY C. CANNON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. CA 05-0714-BH-C

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security, :

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

denying claimant benefits be REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four

of § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78

(1991), for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. The remand pursuant

to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 113

S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this

matter.

DONE this 18th day of October, 2006.

 s/ W. B. Hand 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00714-CG-C Document 18 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Moses, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 771]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered October 21, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While incarcerated awaiting trial on the charges at bar, the defendant wrote a letter to a fellow inmate asking that he convey a bribe offer to a prosecution witness not to testify. The inmate notified the District Attorney’s office of the letter and, at the direction of the District Attorney’s office and the police, wrote back to the defendant in an effort to elicit further incrim*767inating statements. The defendant responded with a letter reiterating his offer to pay the witness a bribe not to testify. At trial, the People offered both letters written by the defendant into evidence as consciousness of guilt. The People also offered for the same purpose five additional letters attributed to the defendant threatening the witness not to testify.

The second letter written by the defendant to his fellow inmate was obtained in violation of his right to counsel and should not have been admitted into evidence at the trial *(see People v Bongarzone,*69 NY2d 892 [1987]; *see also Maine v Moulton,*474 US 159, 171 [1985]; *Massiah v United States,*377 US 201 [1964]). However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see People v Bongarzone,*69 NY2d 892 [1987]). Indeed, the impact of the letter was merely cumulative *(see People v Lumaj,*298 AD2d 335 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Schmidt, J.P, Ritter, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.4 Amendment to Note 8.1.15





AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE




THIS AMENDMENT, dated as of August 1, 2015 (the “Amendment”) to the Promissory Note referred to below is entered into by and between, McKinley Capital 401K Roth Plan (the “Creditor”) and Jolley Marketing, Inc. (the “Debtor”).




WHEREAS, the parties entered into the Promissory Note on May 9, 2013 (the “Note”);




WHEREAS, the original maturity date of the Note was May 9, 2015.




WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to amend the Note to extend the maturity date thereof.




NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the receipt of good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:




MATURITY:  The maturity date of the Note is hereby extended to May 9, 2016.




EFFECTIVE DATE:  The effective date of this Amendment shall be August 1, 2015.




GENERAL PROVISIONS:




(a)

Except as amended hereby, the Note shall continue to be, and shall remain, in full force and effect. This Amendment shall not, except as otherwise provided herein, be deemed (i) to be a waiver of, or consent to, or a modification or amendment of, any other term or condition of the Note or (ii) to prejudice any right or rights which the parties may now have or may have in the future under or in connection with the Note, as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time.




(b)

The terms of the Note are incorporated herein by reference and shall form a part of this Amendment as if set forth herein in their entirety.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Amendment to be executed individually or by its officer thereunto duly authorized, as of the respective dates set forth below.




JOLLEY MARKETING, INC.







Date:  August 1, 2015

/s/  Steve White

By Steve White, President 










McKINLEY Capital 401K Roth Plan







Date:  August 1, 2015

/s/  David Nemelka

By David Nemelka, Trustee
EXHIBIT #99.2
                                  -------------
                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 Quarterly Report of First Litchfield Financial
Corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Carroll A. Pereira, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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/  Carroll A.Pereira
     ------------------------

     Chief Financial Officer

     August 13, 2002
     (Principal Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                CLX ENERGY, INC.
                   Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share
                                  (Unaudited)


                                            Six Months            Three Months
                                          Ended March 31         Ended March 31,
                                    -----------------------  -----------------------
                                        2002        2001         2002        2001
                                    ------------  ---------  ------------  ---------
<S>                                 <C>           <C>        <C>           <C>
Net income (loss)                   $(  110,158)    174,678  $(   31,564)     87,220
                                    ============  =========  ============  =========

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                  2,631,936   2,636,283    2,631,936   2,636,283

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  options                                     -      73,100            -      73,100
                                    ------------  ---------  ------------  ---------

                                      2,631,936   2,709,383    2,631,936   2,709,383
                                    ============  =========  ============  =========

 Net income (loss) per share:
    Basic                           $(      .04)        .07  $(     0.01)       0.03
                                    ============  =========  ============  =========

    Diluted                         $(      .04)        .06  $(     0.01)       0.03
                                    ============  =========  ============  =========
</TABLE>

Stock options are not considered in the diluted EPS calculation for those
periods with net losses, as the impact of the potential common shares (250,000
shares at March 31, 2002) would be to decrease loss per share.


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of income, consolidated balance sheet, consolidated
statement of cash flows for the form 10-Q dated September 30, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317187
<NAME> PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        7,044
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        333
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             695
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         1,268
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,340
<COMMON>                                         1,476
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           38
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              1,091
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   2,605
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              295
<PREFERRED>                                        171
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             2,832
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                  30
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        134
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    80
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   3,193
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    9,340
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        2,173
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               193
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,549
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,742
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            431
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   9
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     440
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           160
<NET-INCOME>                                       280
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         21
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      259
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Ann Kipybida, Appellant, v Good Samaritan Hospital, Respondent.

[827 NYS2d 201]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated March 31, 2005, which granted the *545defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a duty owned by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and that the breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuiy *(see Pulka v Edelman,*40 NY2d 781, 782 [1976]; *Vetrone v Ha Di Corp.,*22 AD3d 835, 837 [2005]; *Jamgotchian v Armenian Church of Holy Martyrs,*6 AD3d 580, 581 [2004]). Owners and lessees are under a duty to maintain their property in a “reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” *(Peralta v Henriquez,*100 NY2d 139, 144 [2003] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Basso v Miller,*40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]; *Demshick v Community Hous. Mgt. Corp.,*34 AD3d 518 [2006]).

Here, the plaintiff, who suffers from various maladies, alleges, in sum, that the defendant provided an insufficient number of general unrestricted handicapped parking spaces in the southwest section of its parking lot accessible to her intended entrance. She was therefore required to walk an excessive distance and became weak, which proximately caused her to fall and sustain injuries *(see Warrick v Capabilities, Inc.,*299 AD2d 622, 623 [2002]).

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating through the affidavit of its expert, that at the time of the accident, the defendant provided a sufficient number of on-site reasonably dispersed handicapped parking spaces accessible to the building’s entrances in compliance with the applicable provisions of the New York State Building Code *(see*9 NYCRR former 1101.1-1106.6; *Zuckerman v City of New York, 49*NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition thereto, the plaintiffs expert affidavit was, in effect, limited to a review of only the southwest segment of the lot where the plaintiff fell, and therefore was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Romano v Stanley,*90 NY2d 444, 451-452 [1997]; *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Adams, Santucci and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### Vernon Lamont HENLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David BARNES, Doctor, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-6610.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 29, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 18, 2006.

Vernon Lamont Henley, Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Pemberton Fessier, Timber-lake, Smith, Thomas *&*Moses, PC, Staun-ton, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Vernon Lamont Henley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Henley v. Barnes,*No. 7:05-cv-00663-jlk, 2006 WL 758828 (W.D.Va. Mar. 24, 2006). 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.*
Ex 10.285 - Endo_RRA_Counterpart_re_2023_Notes


Exhibit 10.285




Counterpart to Registration Rights Agreement
June 24, 2015
Each of the undersigned hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably agrees as a Guarantor, as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement, dated June 30, 2014 by and among Endo Finance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Endo Finco Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Guarantors party thereto, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and RBC Capital Markets, relating to the 5.375% Senior Notes due 2023, to be bound by the terms and provisions of such Registration Rights Agreement.



Exhibit 10.285




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this counterpart as of the date first written above.
	
		
	HAWK ACQUISITION IRELAND LIMITED

	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary




	
		
	By:
	  /s/ Orla Dunlea

	Name:
	Orla Dunlea

	Title:
	Director






	
		
	MANJANO LIMITED (TO BE RENAMED ENDO

	TOPFIN LIMITED)

	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary




	
		
	By:
	  /s/ Orla Dunlea

	Name:
	Orla Dunlea

	Title:
	Director






	
		
	ENDO IRELAND FINANCE LIMITED

	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary




	
		
	By:
	  /s/ Orla Dunlea

	Name:
	Orla Dunlea

	Title:
	Director





[Signature to Registration Rights Agreement Counterpart - 5.375% Senior Notes due 2023]




Exhibit 10.285




	
		
	ENDO US HOLDINGS LUXEMBOURG I S.À R.L.



	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary








	
		
	By:
	    /s/ John D. Boyle

	Name:
	John D. Boyle

	Title:
	A Manager




	
		
	By:
	/s/ Joost Tulkens

	Name:
	Joost Tulkens

	Title:
	B Manager




	
		
	ENDO US HOLDINGS LUXEMBOURG II S.À R.L.



	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary






	
		
	By:
	    /s/ John D. Boyle

	Name:
	John D. Boyle

	Title:
	A Manager




	
		
	By:
	/s/ Joost Tulkens

	Name:
	Joost Tulkens

	Title:
	B Manager





[Signature to Registration Rights Agreement Counterpart - 5.375% Senior Notes due 2023]




Exhibit 10.285




	
		
	HAWK ACQUISITION ULC

	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary






	
		
	By:
	    /s/ Laurence S. Smith

	Name:
	Laurence S. Smith

	Title:
	Director




	
		
	ENDO BERMUDA FINANCE LIMITED

	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary






	
		
	By:
	    /s/ Robert J. Cobuzzi, Ph.D.

	Name:
	Robert J. Cobuzzi, Ph.D.



	Title:
	Director







[Signature to Registration Rights Agreement Counterpart - 5.375% Senior Notes due 2023]