alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6113

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ERIC JOHNSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Catherine C. Blake , Chief District Judge. ( 1:10

- cr
- 00716

- CCB

- 1; 1:15

- cv
- 01605

- CCB )

Submitted : May 23, 2017 Decided: May 26, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Eric Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Christina Ann Hoffman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER C URIAM:
Eric Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”
Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on Ma y 5, 2016 . The notice of appeal was filed on December 20, 2016

. * Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal , or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the fac ts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S . 266 (1988).
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"National Intelligence University","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu","author_name":"ray.x.villarreal@odni.gov","author_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/author\/ray-x-villarrealodni-gov\/","title":"College of Strategic Intelligence","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dXAeCQg68n\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/college-of-strategic-intelligence\/\">College of Strategic Intelligence<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/college-of-strategic-intelligence\/embed\/#?secret=dXAeCQg68n\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“College of Strategic Intelligence” — National Intelligence University\" data-secret=\"dXAeCQg68n\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 21

                           BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
                     Subsidiary Listing as of March 30, 2006


Berkeley Technology Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

         Berkeley International Capital Limited (Guernsey,
          Channel Islands corporation)

         Berkeley International Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

         Frederick Morgan & Co. Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

                  Berkeley International Technologies, Inc.
                   (Delaware corporation)

                           Berkeley International Advisors, Inc.
                            (California corporation)

         London Pacific Advisers Limited (United Kingdom corporation)

         London Pacific Assurance Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

                  LPAL Investments Limited (Guernsey,
                   Channel Islands corporation)

         London Pacific Trust Company Limited (Jersey,
          Channel Islands corporation)

                  Berkeley (USA) Holdings Limited (California corporation)

                           Berkeley International Asset Management
                            (California corporation)

                           Berkeley Institutional Investment, Inc.
                            (California corporation)

                           Berkeley International Capital Corporation
                            (California corporation)

                  London Pacific Secretaries Limited (Jersey,
                   Channel Islands corporation)


_____________
Notes:

(1)   Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.

(2)   All subsidiaries are 100% owned and are listed above,  except that several
      subsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant  have been omitted.
#### Gerry C. DuBOSE, Appellant, v. Jennifer L. CAREY; John D. Kelly; Hanft, Fride, O’Brien, Harries, Swelbar & Burns, P.A., Appellees.

No. 05-4343.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 3, 2006.

Filed: Nov. 9, 2006.

Gerry C. DuBose, Brooklyn Park, MN, pro se.

Steven W. Schneider, Schneider Law Office, Duluth, MN, for Appellees.

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Gerry C. DuBose appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motion for default judgment, granting defendants summary judgment, and enjoining him from filing future litigation against defendants concerning the same events. He also appeals the denial of his request for reconsideration. Following careful review, we affirm the judgment of the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF STERLING**

Subsidiaries of Sterling FinancialCorporation 

Golf Escrow Corporation 

Golf Savings Bank 

Klamath First Capital Trust I 

Lynnwood Financial Statutory Trust I 

Lynnwood Financial Statutory Trust II 

Sterling Capital Trust III 

Sterling Capital Trust IV 

Sterling Capital Statutory Trust V 

Sterling Capital Trust VI 

Sterling Capital Trust VII 

Sterling Capital Trust VIII 

Sterling Capital Trust IX 

Sterling Savings Bank 

Tri-Cities Mortgage Corporation 

Subsidiaries of Sterling Savings Bank 

Action Mortgage Company 

The Dime Service Corporation 

Evergreen Environmental Development Corporation 

Evergreen First Service Corporation 

Sterling Savings Banc Financial Services, Inc. (a subsidiary of Evergreen First Service Corporation) 

Fidelity Service Corporation 

INTERVEST-Mortgage Investment Company 

Mason-McDuffie Financial Corporation (a subsidiary of INTERVEST-Mortgage Investment Company) 

Source Capital Corporation 

Peter W. Wong Associates, Inc. (a subsidiary of Source Capital Corporation) 

Source Capital Leasing Corporation (asubsidiary of Source Capital Corporation)
#### In the Matter of Everett Williams, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

Decided July 1, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
ACCEPTED 06-16-00032-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/12/2016 3:48:24 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
EX-10.3



 





Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PERFORMANCE UNIT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PERFORMANCE UNIT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment
No. 1”) is entered into as of the 7th day of October 2004, by and between the
undersigned Grantee and Reynolds American Inc.



     WHEREAS, the Grantee received a grant of Performance Units pursuant to a
Performance Unit Agreement dated February 4, 2004 (the “Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Agreement provided that the value of each Performance Unit
would be valued using the performance measures set forth in the grid attached
as “Exhibit A” to the Agreement; and



     WHEREAS, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. and Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation entered into certain business combination transactions (the
“Transactions”) effective as of July 30, 2004, which resulted in the formation
of a new public company, Reynolds American Inc. (the “Company”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company is now the sponsor of the Reynolds American Inc.
Long-Term Incentive Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend Exhibit A to reflect the impact of
the Transactions on the valuation of the Performance Units.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the parties to
the Agreement mutually agree to amend the Agreement as follows:



     1. The Agreement is amended by deleting in its entirety the grid
attached thereto as Exhibit A, and inserting therefor two grids, Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2.
Exhibit A-1 shall set forth the performance measures to be used to value each
Performance Unit during the seven-month period beginning January 1, 2004 and
ending July 31, 2004, and Exhibit A-2 shall set forth the performance measures
to be used to value each Performance Unit during the five-month period
beginning August 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2004.



     2. Except as amended by Section 1 of this Amendment No. 1, all
other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its duly authorized officer, and the
Grantee have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Ann A. Johnston
	

	 	 	 	
 
	

	 	 	 	Authorized Signatory
	 

	
Name, Grantee
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                               5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM  10-QSB  FOR THE  QUARTER  ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30,  2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                                55,762
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         70,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     128,349
<PP&E>                                                25,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (3,170)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       278,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                809,327
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                           8,010,783
<OTHER-SE>                                        (8,541,312)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         278,798
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     138,000
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     627,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     9,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      613,542
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  613,542
<DISCONTINUED>                                       (70,520)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (684,062)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.00



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

The undersigned, Kurt R. Kneip, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Inter-Tel, Incorporated (the "Company"), has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the
"Report"). The undersigned hereby certifies 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of August, 2002.


/s/ Kurt R. Kneip
----------------------------------
Kurt R. Kneip
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-134879, 333-114166, 333-102988, 333-85160, 333-61866, 333-25661, 333-32159, 333-23085, 333-17501, 333-03507, and 333-107755) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-116624, 333-30558, 333-46990, 333-81243, 333-105694, 333-105693, 333-134878, 333-151395, and 333-175972), pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan, the 1993 Non-Employee Directors' Equity Incentive Plan, the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2004 Non-Employee Directors' Equity Incentive Plan and the 2006 Equity Incentive Award Plan of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated February 22, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.


/s/ OUM & Co. LLP


San Francisco, California


February 27, 2013
The District Court of the 17th Judicial District. County of Blaine.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN D. WALKER, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-2010-01 AMENDED JUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT

On August 10, 2010, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: A Commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of thirteen (13) months, with a consecutive five (5) years suspended, for the offense of Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, a Fourth or Subsequent Offense, a Felony. The Court recommends that the defendant be placed in the WATCH *104program. Count II: A commitment to the County Jail for a term of six (6) months with all but thirty (30) days suspended, for the offense of Driving While Privilege To Do So Is Suspended or Revoked, a Misdemeanor; and Count III: A commitment to the County Jail for a term of six (6) months, with all but thirty (30) days suspended, for the offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle Without Required Liability Insurance in Effect, a Misdemeanor. Counts I - III shall run consecutively with each other.

On November 4, 2010, 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 via teleconference and was represented by Lindsey Pilecki. The state was not represented.

The Defendant having been duly informed of the amended judgment and commitment, and having waived his right to appear before the undersigned for this pronouncement of sentence, whereupon,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the sentence shall be modified as follows: Count I: A Commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of thirteen (13) months, with a consecutive five (5) years suspended. The Court recommends that the defendant be placed in the WATCH program. Count II: A commitment to the County Jail for a term of six (6) months with all but thirty (30) days suspended; and Count III: commitment to the County Jail for a period of Ten (10) days. Counts I - III shall run consecutively with each other. The fine of $500.00 shall be reduced to $350.00 to meet the statutory requirement, and shall run consecutive to any other fine imposed by the District Court. The remaining terms and conditions of the August 10, 2010 Judgment shall remain as imposed.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2011.

Hon. Ray Dayton, District Court Judge.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Written Statement of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter Ended June 30,
2007 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ David W. ThompsonDavid W. ThompsonChairman and Chief Executive OfficerJuly 26, 2007  38
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 343 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM JAMES HARNING,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 11 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 4 2020

11/04/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0343
#### The Excelsior.

*(District Court, S. D. New York.*

July 5, 1883.)

1. Collision—Damages—Demurrage.

In collision cases, damages in the nature of demurrage for detention of th* vessel while repairing, wlíich are plainly out of all proportion to the value of the vessel, should be disallowed. Only the market value for chartering, or fair net earnings as ordinarily employed, over all expenses, should be awarded for den--u’rage.

2. Same—Depreciation—Repairs.

Nothing should be allowed for permanent depreciation of the vessel repaired, when, after being repaired, the vessel is, on the whole, worth as much as before the injury.

In Admiralty.

*Benedict, Taft & Benedict,*for libelants.

*James McKeen,*for claimant.

Brown, J.

The testimony on the part of the libelants, as to the various items of damage, shows to my apprehension such palpable efforts at exaggeration as to disentitle it to such weight or confidence as it would otherwise receive. The claim that this small schooner of only 70 tons, and six years old, was worth $7,500, and that her daily use or demurrage, without crew or expenses, was worth $15 *925per day, net, or upwards of $5,000 a year, must be deemed gross exaggerations.

I am satisfied from the evidence that $5 per day is ample, and, in fact, more than her net market value for chartering, or her ordinary and fair net earnings, as ordinarily employed. *The Potomac,*105 U. S. 630; *Sturgis*v. *Clough,*1 Wall. 269.

As to permanent depreciation, I am also satisfied that the additions of new masts and sails in place of the old ones fully compensate for any other depreciation, which must have been slight. As in the case of *The Isaac Newton,*4 Blatehf. 21,1 am satisfied that, alter all the repairs made on her, she was “in as good condition as before the injury.” *Petty*v. *Merrill,*9 Blatchf. 447. I cannot sustain any of tlie libelant’s exceptions. Deducting, therefore, from $1,790.48, the amount reported, one-half of the allowance for permanent depreciation, viz., $125, and $77 on account of demurrage, making $202, which, with interest to June 20, 1883, amounts to $256.54, there remains $1,533.94, for which a decree may be entered.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 64 

To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a decommissioning pilot program to decommission and decontaminate the sodium-cooled fast breeder 

experimental test-site reactor located in northwest Arkansas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a decommissioning pilot program to decommission and decontaminate the sodium-cooled fast breeder experimental testsite reactor located in northwest Arkansas. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SEFOR Cleanup Act 

5 of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DECOMMISSIONING PILOT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) PILOT PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Energy shall 

8 establish a decommissioning pilot program to decommis-
2 

•S 64 IS

1 sion and decontaminate the sodium-cooled fast breeder ex2 perimental test-site reactor located in northwest Arkansas 

3 in accordance with the decommissioning activities con4 tained in the August 31, 1998 Department of Energy re5 port on the reactor. 

6 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be 

8 appropriated to carry out this section $16,000,000. 

9 (2) LIMITATION.—No funds from the Nuclear 

10 Waste Fund established by section 302 of the Nu11 clear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222) 

12 may be used for the pilot program established under 

13 subsection (a). 

Æ
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION OF  THE TRUSTEE*  OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as explained in Note 1
to the Trusts financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with
Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 47, released September
16, 1982, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from
generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other
royalty trusts); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
 TEXASBANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THESAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ Lee Ann AndersonName:  Lee Ann AndersonTitle:    Vice President and Trust OfficerDate:  November 8, 2005