alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | · | The                Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | · | The                information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |

| Date:  August                2, 2007 | /s/  James                H.                Miller                                         |
|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           | James                H. MillerChairman,                President and Chief Executive OfficerPPL                Corporation                                                                                                                                                                                   |
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF SYCAMORE NETWORKS, INC.**

Sycamore Networks Asia Inc. 

Delaware 

Sycamore Networks Europe Inc. 

Delaware 

Sycamore Networks Real Estate, LLC 

Delaware 

Sycamore Networks Americas Inc. 

Delaware 

Sycamore Securities Corporation 

Massachusetts 

Sycamore Bach LLC 

Pennsylvania 

Sycamore Networks International BV 

Amsterdam, The Netherlands 

Sycamore Networks (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 

People’s Republic of China 

Sycamore Networks Japan K.K. 

Japan
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ORLANDO C R

UZ-PAZ, a .k.a . La z aro B e n ite z C a

bre ra , a .k.a . La z aro C a

bre ra B e n ite z , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10500

D.C . No. 4:12-c r-01986-JGZ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Je nnife r G. Zipps, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Orla ndo C ruz -Pa z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c h a l le nge s the 6 3-m o nth se nte nc e im p ose d on re m and following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for re e ntry a fte r de porta

tion, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . 

# FIL ED N OV 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Cruz -Pa z ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra w a s c ounse l of re c o rd. W e have p rovide d C ruz -Pa z the opportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 0 5 0 0 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY JUJUAN HOPKINS, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.14-00528-WS-B

)

CHRISTOPHER GORDY, )

)

 Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

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

and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as time-barred and, 

further, that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

DONE this 24th day of March, 2016.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00528-WS-B Document 34 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.36

LOGO

February 19, 2007

Mr. Michael F. Killea

2537 Holly Point Road East

Orange Park, FL 32073

Dear Michael:

This letter amends your Employment Agreement dated August 22, 2001 (the Agreement), with Pacer International, Inc. (Pacer), to extend the Severance Period thereunder from twelve (12) months to
twenty-four (24) months and to correspondingly amend the definition of the capitalized term Severance Period for all purposes of the Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Agreement remains in full force and effect in
accordance with its terms.

If the foregoing accurately sets forth our agreement, please acknowledge that by signing two counterparts of
this letter where provided below and forwarding one to Bill Smith for your personnel file. The other counterpart is for your records.



Very truly yours,/s/ Michael E. UremovichMichael E. UremovichChairman and Chief Executive Officer


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ Michael F. Killea
|Michael F. Killea
----

----

----

----

----

| “Landlord” HCP      SSF, LLC (formerly known as SloughSSF,      LLC), a Delaware limited liabilitycompany By:     HCP      Estates USA Inc., a Delaware                corporation, Its Manager            By:         /s/ JONATHAN M.      BERGSCHNEIDER         Name:    Jonathan M. Bergschneider         Its:         Senior Vice      President  | “Tenant” GENENTECH,      INC.,a      Delaware corporation   By:               /s/ THOMAS G. LYONName:         Thomas G. LyonIts:               VP – Business Services   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,962,122
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,339
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      52,790,410
<DEPRECIATION>                            (33,578,927)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,770,153
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     35,832,593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,770,153
<SALES>                                      3,763,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,816,143
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,407,553
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             751,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            657,085
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   657,085
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

================================================================================

                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer


                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                 March 15, 2004

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
                  reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                           Form 20-F [X] Form 40-F [ ]

  Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper
              as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

  Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper
              as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

    Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in
   this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
     Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
                                    of 1934.

                                 Yes [ ] No [X]

  If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
                in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

================================================================================

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST


Exhibit              Description
-------              -----------

99.1                 Press Release, dated March 12, 2004 regarding Hollinger
                     Inc. to Appeal the Delaware Decision.

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


Date:  March 15, 2004


                                      HOLLINGER INC.

                                      By /s/ Peter G. White
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:   Peter G. White
                                         Title:  Co-Chief  Operating Officer
                                                 and Secretary
#### S.T.A. Parking Corp., Appellant, v Lancer Insurance Company, Respondent. (And Another Action.)

[972 NYS2d 896]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered December 27, 2011 and January 10, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, declared that the insurance policy issued by Lancer Insurance Company to S.T.A. Parking Corp. does not provide coverage to S.T.A. in the underlying actions against it, ordered S.T.A. to reimburse Lancer for indemnification costs already paid, and denied S.T.A.’s cross motion for summary judgment declaring in its favor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject insurance policy states that there is coverage for property damage only if “[p]rior to the policy period” the insured does not know that such damage occurred. The record demonstrates that S.T.A. knew about the property damage to neighboring buildings allegedly caused by construction work performed on its garage at 434 East 77th Street before the inception of the policy *(see Henry Modell & Co. v General Ins. Co. of Trieste & Venice,*193 AD2d 412 [1st Dept 1993]). On February 4, 2005, the date of S.T.A.’s application for the insurance, correspondence was sent to S.T.A. from counsel for 430 Owners Corp. advising that S.T.A.’s construction project had caused damage to its building at 430 East 77th Street, and advising S.T.A. to notify its general liability carrier that “claims will be made.” In addition, Michael Zacharias, president and sole shareholder of S.T.A., testified that “at the end of 2004 or very early 2005” a Department of Buildings inspector reported that there was a crack in the building that had been caused by the work being done on S.T.A.’s premises. In an affidavit, Zacharias stated that in about the first week of January 2005, there was a flood from a broken water pipe in the basement of the building at 436 East 77th Street and that the building owner “intimated that it wanted STA to pay to repair the neglected [sic] conditions in 436’s basement.”

We have considered S.T.A.’s remaining arguments and find *513them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
#### Temidayo AJAKA, Fehintola Ajaka, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants, v. RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORPORATION, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Homecomings Financial Network, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, Brooksamerica Mortgage Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant.

No. 07-12836

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 19, 2008.

Charles McLeod Baird, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants.

*917Mark F. Dehler, Michael E. Perez, Mark F. Dehler, LLC, Decatur, GA, Greg M. Taube, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and VINSON,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable C. Roger Vinson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before us for the second time. The question presented is whether plaintiffs’ claim for rescission and damages under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601*et s*eg., and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1639, is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel — because plaintiff Temidayo Ajaka failed to reveal the claims to the bankruptcy court in his Chapter 13 wage earner case with the intent to conceal them from the court in order to gain an unfair advantage over his creditors. In *Ajaka v. Broolcsameriea Mortgage Corporation et al.,*453 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir.2006), the plaintiffs challenged the district court invocation of the doctrine to bar their claims on summary judgment. We vacated the summary judgment, and remanded the case for trial, because a material issue of fact that needed to be resolved: “whether Ajaka had the motivation and intent to manipulate the judicial system under the circumstances presented.” *Id.*at 1346.

On remand, the district court, following a bench trial, once again held that the doctrine barred plaintiffs’ claims. As indicated in its dispositive order, the court found, on the basis of the testimony adduced, that Ajaka intended to manipulate the judicial system: “Mr. Ajaka had both the knowledge of the claim early enough, as well as motivation sufficient enough, to make a mockery of the judicial system circumstances here.... Mr. Ajaka knew of his TILA claims well before when he finally revealed them to the bankruptcy court, and ... affirmatively intended to conceal those claims in his bankruptcy proceeding, in order to gain an unfair advantage over his lenders.” Order at 36. The evidence fully supported these findings. The district court’s judgment is, accordingly,

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1
**Certifications**
I, J. Collier Sparks, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of American BuildingControl, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.     Dated: November 15, 2004      By /s/ J. Collier Sparks     J. Collier Sparks   Chief Executive Officer
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

925 

CA 14-00021 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN DENIS J. 

SULLIVAN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

AND ORDER

JAMES R. MULDOON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, 

AND GEORGE S. BLASIAK, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

HARRIS BEACH PLLC, SYRACUSE (DAVID M. CAPRIOTTI OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, SYRACUSE (JON P. DEVENDORF OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

GEORGE S. BLASIAK, BALDWINSVILLE, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered March 15, 2013. The order granted

the motion of petitioner to confirm an arbitration award and denied

the cross motion of respondent James R. Muldoon to modify or vacate

the arbitration award. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Todd R. Greenert, Plaintiff, v Sales Associates of WNY, LLC, Appellant, and Jeffrey Ezzo, Individually and Doing Business as Neighbor Jeff Construction, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[974 NYS2d 815]

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John E O’Donnell, J.), entered March 9, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendant Jeffrey Ezzo, individually and doing business as Neighbor Jeff Construction for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against him.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation discontinuing appeal signed by the attorneys for the parties on October 16, 2013,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

All concur except Martoche, J., who is not participating. Present — Smith, J.E, Feradotto, Garni, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6492

SHEPPARD BROWN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-04-73-1) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 1, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sheppard Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sheppard Brown, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Order entered October 17, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00805-CR

No. 05-18-00830-CR

ROBERT RICHARDSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F15-76782-U, F17-18579-U

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 15, 2018 pro se motion to extend the time to file 

his pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s 

pro se response filed no later than December 5, 2018.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE