alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 22, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

Honorable Adrian G. Duplantier, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of *

Louisiana, sitting by designation.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-15457

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-00502-CV-RRA-W

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

RPH MANAGEMENT, INC., 

d.b.a. McDonald's, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(May 22, 2006)

Before HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and DUPLANTIER , District Judge. *
2

PER CURIAM:

After review and oral argument, we find no reversible error in the magistrate

judge’s order dated September 2, 2005.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1





STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Richard DeGarmo, Acting Chief Executive Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-K/A Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2012  (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Richard DeGarmo


Richard DeGarmo, Director and


Acting Chief Executive Officer


Dated: January 22, 2014
#### Emdadul Kabir, Appellant, v Nina Vanderhost, Respondent.

[962 NYS2d 703]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated February 6, 2012, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine as a result of a motor vehicle accident in which his vehicle and the defendant’s vehicle came into contact. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

The defendant met her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant’s expert opined that the condition of the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff’s spine were the result of preexisting multilevel degenerative disc disease and were not causally related to the subject accident *(see Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]). The defendant further established, inter alia, that the plaintiff missed only six to eight days of work following the accident and, therefore, he did not sustain a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Richards v Tyson,*64 AD3d 760, 761 [2009]).

*812In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The opinion of the plaintiffs expert that the condition of the plaintiffs spine was caused by the subject accident was conclusory, and therefore insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Williams v Town of Greenburgh,*101 AD3d 990 [2012]; *Barry v Future Cab Corp.,*71 AD3d 710, 711 [2010]; *cf. Fraser-Baptiste v New York City Tr. Auth.,*81 AD3d 878 [2011]). The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injuries he allegedly sustained in the subject accident rendered him unable to perform substantially all of his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days of the first 180 days subsequent to the accident *(see Barry v Future Cab Corp.,*71 AD3d at 711). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Angiolillo, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.9

                  AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 30, 1998

On October 30, 1998 Geophysical de Mexico ("GdM") and Seismic International,
Inc. ("INTERNATIONAL") entered into a contract (the "Contract").  Both parties
have agreed with the execution of this amendment to modify the Contract to
allow for different terms of payment as outlined in paragraph 3 of the
contract and to grant INTERNATIONAL additional time to perform the services as
outlined in paragraph 4 of the contract.  The two paragraphs in question shall
be amended in their entirety to read as follows:

         3.   INTERNATIONAL acknowledges the receipt of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
              AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($500,000.00) from GdM as part consideration
              under this Agreement.  GdM agrees to pay INTERNATIONAL an
              additional consideration of SEVEN MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS
              ($7,000,000).  The first 50% or THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED
              THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,500,000) will be due and payable upon the
              arrival of the equipment and prior to commencement of the work. 
              The balance of THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
              ($3,500,000) will be due upon delivery of the detailed map(s)
              and related information described.

         4.   INTERNATIONAL shall be given 90 days to commence the work and
              120 days to complete the detailed interpretive map(s) and 
              related information from March 31, 1999.  Geophysical de Mexico
              acknowledges that the FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000)
              advanced to NORTH AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL on behalf of the Contract
              with INTERNATIONAL has been spent on gathering information and
              testing the site for the benefit of both parties and
              INTERNATIONAL will not be obligate to refund any funds.


Accepted:                                  Accepted:





/s/ Encino Rivera Celia               /s/ Michael G. Maguire    
____________________  March 18, 1999   _____________________  March 18, 1999
Administrator Uniro                    Michael Maguire, President
Geophysical de Mexico                  Seismic International, Inc.
#### Joel BAKER, Ph.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-15727.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*118Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 17, 2006.

Joel Baker, Berkeley, CA, pro se.

John W. Allen, Esq., Roy A. Combs, Esq., Michael Lee Smith, Esq., Oakland Unified School District, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

We have received notice of appellant’s payment of the docketing and filing fees for this appeal.

A review of the record and appellant’s response to the court’s August 11, 2006 order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); *Am. Int’l Underwriters, Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co.,*843 F.2d 1253, 1260 (9th Cir.1988) (“The right to remove a state court case to federal court is clearly limited to defendants.”).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Grey Wolf, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Thomas P.
Richards, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and
David W. Wehlmann, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each 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, as amended; and

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly present, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ Thomas P. Richards
---------------------------------------
Thomas P. Richards
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ David W. Wehlmann
---------------------------------------
David W. Wehlmann
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 5, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
INTER-TEL, INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE (EXHIBIT 27.1).
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
INTER-TEL, INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998  RESTATED FOR  ACCOUNTING  FOR THE "ITS"  ACQUISITION  USING
PURCHASE ACCOUNTING INSTEAD OF POOLING-OF-INTERESTS  ACCOUNTING. THE TRANSACTION
WAS  ORIGINALLY  ACCOUNTED  FOR  AS  A  POOLING,   BUT  INTER-TEL   SUBSEQUENTLY
REPURCHASED  SHARES  OF ITS  COMMON  STOCK  DURING  THE THIRD  QUARTER  OF 1998,
PRECLUDING POOLING-OF-INTERESTS ACCOUNTING TREATMENT. THIS SCHEDULE IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          66,691
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,096
<INVENTORY>                                     19,129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               142,498
<PP&E>                                          48,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,488
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       102,165
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,546
<SALES>                                        131,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,846
<CGS>                                           68,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,447)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,168)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,168)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          63,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,319
<PP&E>                                         582,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                 208,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 490,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,752
<BONDS>                                        249,397
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,966
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   490,892
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,646
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,274
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    92
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,987
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,223)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,059)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,164)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,164)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of
Firstmark Corp. (the "COMPANY") hereby certifies:

         (i)      that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
                  quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "REPORT") fully complies with
                  the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (ii)     that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                  of operations of the Company.



Dated:      August 14, 2002                 /s/ KURT RECHNER
      ---------------------------           ---------------------------------
                                            Kurt Rechner
                                            Chief Financial Officer
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-92,530-01

EX P ARTE VINCENT LAMON WILLIAMS, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1420283-A IN THE 230TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of posse s s io n o f a c o n tr o ll e d substance and sentenc ed to twenty -five y ear s’ imprisonment. The Four teenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction

. W

illiams v. State , No. 14-15-00220- CR (Tex. App. — Houston [14t h Dist.] Aug
. 16, 2 0 1 6 )
. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to thi s Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. On September 9, 2019, the trial court enter ed an order desig nating issues. The district cler k proper ly forwa

rded this application to this Court u n d er T ex as Rule of Appellate Procedur e 73.4(b)( 5). Howeve r, the application was forwa rded befor e the trial court made finding s of fac t and
co n cl u s i ons of law. We rema nd this application to the trial court to complete its evident i ar yinvestiga tion and make f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law
. T h e t rial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order
. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections , proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.
Filed: Apr il 21, 2021 Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 648 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 648

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 to 
              extend the authority for drought assistance.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF 
              ACT OF 1991.

    Section 104(c) of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief 
Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. 2214(c)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
2005'' and inserting ``September 30, 2010''.

            Passed the Senate December 16, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 648

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 to 
              extend the authority for drought assistance.
```
Exhibit 10.13

                      FIRST AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT

         This Amendment to License Agreement is entered into as of this 22nd day
of March, 2002 by and between Profile, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company ("Profile") and Pro Uro Care Inc., a Minnesota corporation ("Licensee").

                                    Recitals:

         A. The parties entered into a License Agreement effective January 14,
2002 ("License Agreement"); and

         B. The parties desire to amend the License Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and
premises contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:

         1. Subsection 7.2(b) is hereby eliminated in its entirety and shall
have no further force or effect.

         2. Except as amended hereby, the License Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect and binding upon and enforceable against the parties thereto.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this
Agreement on the date first above referenced.

                                                              PRO URO CARE INC.


                                                              By: [signed]
                                                                  -----------
                                                              Its: President
                                                                   -----------


                                                              PROFILE, L.L.C.


                                                              By: [signed]
                                                                  -----------
                                                              Its: Manager
                                                                   ---------
Exhibit 32

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 Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, John B. Wood and Michele Nakazawa, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 14, 2009/s/ John B. WoodJohn B. WoodChief Executive OfficerDate: August 14, 2009/s/ Michele NakazawaMichele NakazawaChief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6982

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARL BENIT COOPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-206) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Benit Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Howe Hendricks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Carl Benit Cooper appeals the district court order denying his motion filed under Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have reviewed the record and the district court order and find no reversible order. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cooper , No. CR-95-206 (D.S.C. filed Mar. 2, 2001; entered March 6, 2001). 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