alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                  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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2002 of FASTNET Corporation (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry Borden, Chief
Executive 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, based on my
knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss. 78m(a) or
ss.78o(d)); and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

April 4, 2003                                    /s/ R. Barry Borden
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 R. Barry Borden
                                                 President and Chairman
666 A.2d 161

#### IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL HAWKINS, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

November 6, 1995.

ORDER

The Office of Attorney Ethics having filed a petition with the Supreme Court pursuant to *Rule*1:20 — 11 (b) (2) recommending that MICHAEL HAWKINS of PATERSON, who was admitted to the *550bar of this State in 1984, be immediately temporarily suspended from the practice of law, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL HAWKINS is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by MICHAEL HAWKINS pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court, for good cause shown, pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that MICHAEL HAWKINS be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys.
#### Luis Martinez et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant, and Verizon New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[963 NYS2d 391]

*1014In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant City of New York appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 31, 2012, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

As the party moving for summary judgment, in order for the defendant City of New York to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it on the ground that it had no prior written notice of the alleged defective or dangerous condition *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]), it was required to submit proof that it did not receive the notice required by the statute *(see Smith v City of Mount Vernon,*101 AD3d 847 [2012]; *Spanos v Town of Clarkstown,*81 AD3d 711, 712 [2011]; *Foley v County of Suffolk,*80 AD3d 658, 659-660 [2011]; *LiFrieri v Town of Smithtown,*72 AD3d 750, 752 [2010]; *Shannon v Village of Rockville Ctr.,*39 AD3d 528, 529 [2007]). The City failed to submit any affidavit from any city official or employee demonstrating that a search of the appropriate records had been done and that there was no prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition that caused the plaintiffs accident, and there was nothing in the deposition testimony of the three city witnesses that indicated that a search of the city records had been conducted without any success in finding any prior written notices. As such, the City failed to make a prima facie showing that no prior written notice was actually received *(see Pangerl v Town of N. Hempstead,*76 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2010]; *Reiser v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr.,*70 AD3d 796, 796-797 [2010]; *McNeill v City of New York,*40 AD3d 823 [2007]).

Since the City failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground of lack of prior written notice, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *Pampillonia v Burducea,*68 AD3d 1081, 1081-1082 [2009]; *Zeitoune v Cohen,*66 AD3d 889, 891 [2009]).

Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.
Employment Offer Letter - Warionex Belen



 Exhibit 10.10 
 AMEDICA CORPORATION 
  

			
	615 Arapeen Drive	  	(801) 583-5100 telephone
	Suite 302	  	(801) 583-8635 fax
	Salt Lake City, Utah 84108	  	www.amedicacorp.com
		
		  	May 31, 2005
		
	Mr. Warionex J. Belen	  	

 Dear Jose: 
 Amedica is pleased to offer you the position of Vice President – Products at a salary of $6,250.00 per average semi monthly pay period which equates to $150,000 per year. This position is exempt. We anticipate your employment to begin
on May 31, 2005 which will be your hire date. 
 This offer includes a comprehensive relocation package for your move to Utah, limited
to $25,000. Amedica will directly reimburse you for all reasonable and customary deductible relocation expenses pursuant to IRS Publication 521 for an Accountable Plan, including shipment of household goods, transporting, temporary storage if needed
and temporary lodging for you and your family for up to 90 days and transportation of family or a mileage allowance of $0.15/mile and an actual hotel and meal expenses. To the extent that reimbursement of these expenses exceeds IRS guidelines,
portions thereof will be considered non-deductible and taxable. 
 Upon your hire date, you will be nominated to receive an incentive stock
option award for 100,000 shares of Amedica’s common stock, subject to a 4-year vesting schedule, 10-year option life and approval by Amedica’s Board of Directors. We feel that these stock options are a valuable part of your total
compensation package. 
 As part of this offer, you will be eligible for Amedica’s complete benefits program, including medical, dental,
life and long term disability insurances and our 401(k) retirement plan. Also included are Amedica’s 10 paid holidays, 5 days of personal/sick leave and 20 days of vacation per year. When you report to work, you will be provided with more
detailed information regarding our complete policies and benefits programs. 
 Your employment at Amedica assumes an obligation to maintain
confidentiality of Amedica’s business information and that of its clients, partners and suppliers. By safeguarding such confidential information, Amedica earns the respect and further trust of our clients, suppliers and partners. Thus, as a
condition of your employment, you will be required to sign a standard confidentiality agreement. 







 Mr. Warionex J. Belen 
 5/31/05 
 Page 2 
 Amedica is committed to maintaining its leading technology position in the orthopedic implant field and to the
commercialization of revolutionary orthopedic implant products for treatment of joint diseases. Our success depends upon bright, dedicated personnel such as yourself. If you are in agreement with the terms of this letter, please sign below and
return one original to our offices. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Eugene J. Jones

	Eugene B. Jones
	Vice President, Finance & CFO


  

	
	Agreed to and Accepted by:
	
	 /s/ Warionex Belen

	Warionex Belen
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3643 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3643

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain woven fabrics of cotton, 
 containing less than 85 percent by weight of cotton, mixed mainly or 
       solely with man-made fibers, weighing not more than 200 g/
                             m<SUP>2</SUP>.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2006

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain woven fabrics of cotton, 
 containing less than 85 percent by weight of cotton, mixed mainly or 
       solely with man-made fibers, weighing not more than 200 g/
                             m<SUP>2</SUP>.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOVEN FABRICS OF COTTON, CONTAINING LESS THAN 85 
              PERCENT BY WEIGHT OF COTTON, MIXED MAINLY OR SOLELY WITH 
              MAN-MADE FIBERS, WEIGHING NOT MORE THAN 200 G/
              M<SUP>2</SUP>.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.52.12        Woven fabrics of        Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           cotton, containing                                                31/2009          ''
                           less than 85 percent                                                                .
                           by weight of cotton,
                           mixed mainly or
                           solely with man-made
                           fibers, weighing not
                           more than 200 g/m2,
                           the foregoing printed
                           and other than plain
                           weave or 3-thread or
                           4-thread twill
                           (including cross
                           twill) (provided for
                           in subheading
                           5210.59).............

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Abdul Jabbor Malik, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 806]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O’Shea, J.), entered April 29, 2008 in Chemung County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

*1043Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus contending that his conditional release date was improperly calculated and, further, that the statute underlying his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree *(see*Penal Law § 265.02) was unconstitutionally vague. Habeas corpus relief is unavailable where, as here, the contentions advanced could have been remedied by an administrative appeal *(see People ex rel. Bariteau v Donelli,*24 AD3d 1065 [2005]) or raised either upon a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction or in the context of a collateral motion *(see People ex rel. Cropper v Taylor,*48 AD3d 852, 853 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 710 [2008]; *People ex rel. Encarnacion v McGinnis,*2 AD3d 933 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 510 [2004]). Moreover, even assuming the issues raised by petitioner had merit, under the circumstances presented here, habeas corpus relief would be inappropriate as it would not entitle petitioner to immediate release from prison *(see People ex rel. King v Bennett,*45 AD3d 1015, 1016 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 703 [2008]; *People ex rel. Encarnacion v McGinnis, supra).*Accordingly, Supreme Court’s judgment is affirmed.

Mercure, J.P, Rose, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### State v. Whaley

Case below: 178 N.C. App. 563

No. 440PA06

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-948)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S, § 7A-31

1. —

2. Allowed 05/03/07

3. Allowed on the issue whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial court to exclude the testimony and evidence offered at defendant’s trial regarding the victim’s credibility and mental state. 05/03/07
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Doundley Edwards, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 92]

Judgment, Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane Kiesel, J.), rendered May 9, 2005, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted stalking in the fourth degree, attempted criminal contempt in the second degree and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 90 days, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly granted the People’s motion to reduce the class A misdemeanor charges to class B misdemeanors, since such reductions were matters of prosecutorial discretion *(see People v Urbaez,*10 NY3d 773, 775 [2008]). Defendant’s other arguments related to the reduction are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find them without merit. Similarly unpreserved and meritless is defendant’s claim that evidence of completed crimes was insufficient to establish attempted crimes *(see People v Burke,*186 Misc 2d 278, 281 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2000]). *413We also note that, by electing to proceed pro se, defendant did not exempt himself from any preservation requirements that would otherwise be applicable.

Since defendant improperly claims for the first time in his reply brief that there was no inquiry as to his waiver of the right to counsel at trial, we decline to review the issue *(see generally People v Napolitano,*282 AD2d 49, 53 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 866 [2001]). In any event, defendant has failed to present an adequate record to overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to judicial proceedings *(see People v Velasquez,*1 NY3d 44, 48 [2003]).

The sentence was legally imposed. A presentence report was not required since defendant was convicted of misdemeanors and a violation, and his aggregate sentence did not exceed 90 days’ imprisonment (CPL 390.20 [2]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50262

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS GUERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-1882-13

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Carlos Guerrero has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Guerrero has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

us to make a fair evaluation of Guerrero’s claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 4, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50262 Document: 00512825927 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2014
No. 13-50262

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014), 

cert. denied, 2014 WL 2616172 (Oct. 6, 2014) (No. 13-10484).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Guerrero’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-50262 Document: 00512825927 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         924,624                 335,603
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  296,739                 108,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,932<F1>               9,770<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     18,823                  18,823
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,246,118                 473,109
<PP&E>                                       2,334,428               2,309,566
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,336,305)             (1,280,305)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,525,277               1,783,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,139,737                 439,735
<BONDS>                                         68,750<F2>              81,003<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                (4,632,768)<F3>         (4,686,665)<F3>
<COMMON>                                     5,977,558               5,977,558
<OTHER-SE>                                    (28,000)<F4>            (28,000)<F4>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,525,277               1,783,631
<SALES>                                        290,840                 314,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               292,925                 321,765
<CGS>                                           14,854                  11,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  239,028                 189,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,498                   5,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,897                 132,715
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .01                     .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01                     .03
<FN>
<F1>  Pre Paid Insurance
<F2>  Notes Payable - Long Term
<F3>  Accumulated Deficit
<F4>  Deferred Compensation
</FN>



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SINCLAIR ELLIS, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00515-GLR-1; 1:19-cv-2644-GLR)

Submitted: July 21, 2020 Decided: July 24, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sinclair Ellis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sinclair Ellis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ellis has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ellis’ motion for 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 this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED