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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60479

Summary Calendar

ROBERT ANTHONY HUBBARD,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER UNKNOWN SIKES; CORRECTIONAL 

OFFICER UNKNOWN WALKER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TERRY 

RUDOLPH; LIEUTENANT SANDRA SMOOT; SERGEANT UNKNOWN 

FOSTER; WARDEN JOHNNY CROCKETT; CAPTAIN UNKNOWN 

DONALD,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:10-CV-131

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Anthony Hubbard, former Mississippi prisoner # 109084, filed a 

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kemper Neshoba 

Regional Correctional Facility and officers employed by the facility alleging 

* 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

May 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60479 Document: 00512633573 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
No. 13-60479

claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

needs. The district court dismissed his claims against the facility for failure to 

state a claim. The claims against defendant Walker were dismissed for failure 

to effect service of process. Defendants Smoot and Scitz were granted 

judgment as a matter of law during a jury trial proceeding. The jury returned 

a verdict in favor of defendants Rudolph, Crockett, and Foster. Hubbard 

appeals.

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, 

if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Hubbard’s 

claims against Captain Donald remain pending in the district court. Though 

the defendants filed a suggestion of death and Hubbard failed to move to 

substitute, the district court did not enter a judgment of dismissal as to the 

claims against Donald. See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(a). We therefore lack 

jurisdiction over Hubbard’s appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a),(b); FED. 

R. CIV. P. 54(b); Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

2

 Case: 13-60479 Document: 00512633573 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2014
#### Robin Adair et al., Respondents, v Municipal Utility Commission of the Village of Bath, Doing Business as Bath Electric, Gas and Water Systems, et al., Appellants.

Decided September 22, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 1606.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. CPLR 5602 (a) (2) does not apply to appeals filed as of right.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2007 as  filed  with  the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, as
C.E.O., certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

Date: November 13, 2007

Signature: /s/ Calvin A. Wallen, III
          ----------------------------------
          Calvin A. Wallen, III, C.E.O.
**HomeEq Servicing****ANNUAL CERTIFICATION**Re:     Structured Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-BC2 (the "Trust"), issued pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, dated as of 02/01/2007 (the "Servicing Agreement"), by and among Lehman Brothers Holding Inc,, as depositor (the "Depositor"), U.S.  Bank,  National Association,  as trustee (the "Trustee"), and Aurora Loan Services LLC, as master servicer the "Master Servicer"), and Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. d/b/a HomEq Servicing, as servicer (the "Servicer"). I, Arthur Q, Lyon, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the HomEq  Servicing Division of Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. d/b/a HomEq Servicing, hereby  certify to the Depositor, the Trustee, the Master Servicer  and their officers, directors, and affiliates, pursuant to Section 5.04 of the Servicing Agreement, that: A review of the activities of the Servicer for the Calendar year ending December 31, 2307, and to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects, except as noted below. Foreclosure was not initiated in accordance with the timeframes established by its servicing agreements and the servicing criteria set forth in 1122(d)(4)(vii) of Regulation AB and therefore represents an instance of material noncompliance Date:  March 18, 2008 /s/ Arthur Q. Lyon Arthur Q. Lyon Executive Vice President and CEO  HomEq Servicing Division Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc,
From: The District Court of the 13 Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, *70Plaintiff, vs. SUSAN YOUNG, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-95-408 DECISION

On April 28,2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years, all suspended, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Forgery, Common Scheme, a felony. This sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Criminal Cause No. DC-96-223.

On October 9, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Kris Copenhaver. The state was represented by Margaret Gallagher.

Before hearing the application, Kris Copenhaver provided a Motion to Remand to District Court for Determination of Appropriate Credit for Time Served to the Sentence Review Division.

In reviewing the Motion, the Sentence Review Division Ordered that this matter be remanded to the District Court for determination of an appropriate credit for time served; whether it be concurrent with Federal time served and Colorado time served.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the Application for Review of Sentence shall be continued until the next available hearings in April 2010.

Done in open Court this 9th day of October, 2009.

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
663 A.2d 1349

#### HENRY JANEK v. LARRY L. LEIFER, ESQ.

June 7, 1995.

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on a claim of an appeal as of right based on *Rule*2:2-l(a)(l), and the Court having reviewed the submissions of the parties, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for failure to state a substantial constitutional question. See *Tidewater Oil Co. v. Mayor and Council of Carteret,*44 *N.J.*338, 341-342, 209 A.2d 105 (1965); *Piscataway Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Piscataway,*73 *N.J.*546, 549, 376 A.2d 527 (1977).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      219,166
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,769
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          57,490
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        39,912
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  12,883
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 332,220
<COMMON>                                         6,142
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       62,992
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             26,591
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  95,725
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,200
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            88,685
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              51,845
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    3,369
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  89,396
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  332,220
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       70,781
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,735
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      62,471
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      64,206
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          6,575
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               (752)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   5,823
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         2,539
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,284
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         70
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    3,214
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         1,646
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        1,768
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           (233)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52


</TABLE>
#### The Cordele Guano Company *v.*Carter.

There being no complaint that any error of law was committed, the evidence being sufficient to warrant the verdict, and it not appearing that the alleged newly discovered evidence was unknown till after the trial, there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

April 16, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Complaint on note. Before Judge Eish. Sumter superior court. November term, 1893.

The note sued on was given for commercial fertilizer. It stated that the sacks containing the same had on each the guaranteed analysis as required by law, and that the maker bought on his own judgment, waiving all guarantee as to its effect on crops. There were pleas that the guano was not branded and tagged on any.package when sold; and that defendant bought it for use on his crops only, and it was so used, but was of little or no value and not suited to the use intended, whereby the *703consideration had failed. There was evidence in support of these pleas, and the jury found for the defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial on the general grounds, and for newly discovered evidence; but there was no showing that the matters in the affidavit containing the new evidence were previously unknown, nor as to diligence in procuring evidence. The motion was overruled.

James Dodson & Son, for plaintiff.

Fort & Watson, for defendant
#### In the Matter of Daniel Goldstein et al., Appellants, v New York State Urban Development Corporation, Doing Business as Empire State Development Corporation, Respondent.

Submitted September 14, 2009;

decided September 17, 2009

Reported below, 64 AD3d 168.

Motion by Institute for Justice for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12766

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00185-CG-C-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RONALD LARRY AUTREY, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

(May 10, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-12766 Date Filed: 05/10/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

William Gregory Hughes, appointed counsel for Ronald Larry Autrey in this 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merits of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Autrey’s conviction and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-12766 Date Filed: 05/10/2013 Page: 2 of 2
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 
  Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.
   Delaware
    
    6719
    
    52-2301683(State or Other Jurisdiction
    
    Commission File Number
    
    (I.R.S. Employerof Incorporation)
    
    
    
    Identification Number)
 Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.
300 First Stamford Place, Stamford, Connecticut 06902
(203) 977-8000
 
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 8.01. Other Events
  Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits




---



##### 



SIGNATURE
   ODYSSEY RE HOLDINGS CORP.By:

/s/   Donald L. SmithName:
    Donald L. SmithTitle:
    Senior Vice President,
General Counsel, and
Corporate Secretary




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit No.
    
    Description of Exhibits99.1
    
    Press Release, dated October 6, 2005.
#### In the Matter of New York Charter School Association et al., Respondents, v M. Patricia Smith, as Commissioner of Labor, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Foundation for a Greater Opportunity et al., Respondents, v M. Patricia Smith, as Commissioner of Labor, et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Submitted September 8, 2009;

decided October 27, 2009

Reported below, 61 AD3d 1091.

Motion by New York State Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted, three copies of the brief to be served and an original and 24 copies filed within 30 days.
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Angelos M. Stergiou, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc.; and


2. Based on my knowledge, this 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.


Dated: April 30, 2019





/s/ Angelos M. StergiouAngelos M. Stergiou, MD, ScD h.c.President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
#### Eugenia Kaye, Appellant, v Donald Trump et al., Respondents.

[873 NYS2d 5]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered May 9, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs application for leave to amend, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint fails to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that defendants variously made rude remarks to and about her, commenced two baseless lawsuits and filed a criminal complaint against her, and frightened her and her daughter by attempting to instigate her arrest. This conduct, while not to be condoned, is not *“so*outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community” *(Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp.,*58 NY2d 293, 303 [1983] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Moreover, many of the alleged statements and actions occurred in the context of adversarial litigation and therefore cannot provide a foundation for the claim *(see Yalkowsky v Century Apts. Assoc.,*215 AD2d 214, 215 [1995]).

*580Nor does the complaint state a cause of action for either malicious prosecution or defamation. As to malicious prosecution, plaintiff failed to allege facts that would establish special injury, i.e., “some concrete harm that is considerably more cumbersome than the physical, psychological or financial demands of defending a lawsuit” *(Wilhelmina Models, Inc. v Fleisher,*19 AD3d 267, 269 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Plaintiff alleges conclusorily that she was forced by defendants’ “acts” to sell her condominium unit and move from the building; she asserts no facts that would establish that the two civil actions or the filing of a criminal complaint, or the rude remarks, caused her to move. Moreover, since none of the lawsuits brought against her were disposed of on the merits, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the requisite lack of probable cause *(see id.).*

As to defamation, the statements allegedly made to or about plaintiff were “[l]oose, figurative or hyperbolic statements, [which] even if deprecating the plaintiff, are not actionable” *(Dillon v City of New York,*261 AD2d 34, 38 [1999]); the statements made in the complaints in the actions instituted against plaintiff are absolutely privileged *(see Lacher v Engel,*33 AD3d 10, 13 [2006]).

The motion court properly denied plaintiffs application for leave to amend the complaint. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the nature of the allegations in her complaint and the supporting record do not establish that she has a viable claim.

Motion seeking leave to strike portions of appellant’s brief and for other related relief denied.

Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and De-Grasse, JJ. *[See*2008 NY Slip Op 31329(G).]
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 E0 07 1

. A B BA YAKOB et al

. v

. KI DI ST MARI AM ETHI OPI AN

ORTHODOX TEW AHEDO CHURCH, I NC.

Up o n c o nsid e ratio n o f the “ Emergenc y M o tio n to Resto re Co nsent

I nterlo c u to ry I nj u nc t io n Pend ing A p peal,” the same is hereby D EN I ED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 

## May 24, 2024

05/24/2024
EXHIBIT 31.a

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David A. Nelson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007,
   of Regent Technologies, Inc. (the "Company");

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 Company
   as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I, in my capacity as the Company's certifying officers, am responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
   in EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the Company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
    information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiary,
    is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
    period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
    procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
    report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) Presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
    disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
    Evaluation Date;

5. I, in my capacity as the Company's certifying officers, have disclosed,
   based on my most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit
   committee of the Company's board of directors (or persons performing the
   equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
    controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
    process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
    Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
    employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls;
    and

6. I, in my capacity as the Company's certifying officers, have indicated
   in this report whether there were significant changes in internal controls
   or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
   subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
   corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
   weaknesses.


Date: November 15, 2007           /S/ DAVID A. NELSON
                                      -------------------
                                      David A. Nelson, Chief Executive
                                      Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JUSTIN ELIN COLON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-681 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed August 23, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Samantha L. Ward, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the amended annual report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended June 30, 2007 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Michael Rideman, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael Rideman

Michael RidemanCEODated: December 3, 2007

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.