alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Melton SUMMERVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1407.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 18, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 1, 2006.

Melton Summerville, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Matthew Keen, Tracie Marie Shere, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Melton Summerville appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Summerville v. Duke Univ.,*No. 1:05-cv-00223-WLO, 2006 WL 771887 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2006). 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.*
Cause No. DA 24-0204

__________________________________________________________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

__________________________________________________________________

MARK JOHNSON and MOLLY JOHNSON, Husband and Wife, individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. and 

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO.,

Defendants and Appellees.

On Appeal from the Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County

Cause No. DV-15-2019-934-NE, Hon. Dan Wilson

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING APPELLANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF

Pursuant to Rule 26(1), M. R. App. P., Plaintiffs/Appellants MARK 

JOHNSON and MOLLY JOHNSON, Husband and Wife, individually and on 

behalf of all other similarly situated, are granted a thirty-day extension of time 

through and up to Wednesday, August 28, 2024, within which to file their reply 

brief.

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED and DATED as indicated below.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 23 2024

07/23/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0204
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1226 CAF 11-01113**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF BRITTNEY N., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ------------------------------------ ORDER NIAGARA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

THOMAS M. O’DONNELL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, NIAGARA FALLS, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. CLAUDE A. JOERG, COUNTY ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (ERIN P. DELABIO OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Niagara County (David E. Seaman, J.), entered August 5, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7. The order placed respondent in the custody of the Niagara County Commissioner of Social Services. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 31.2 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Edward L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telos Corporation; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany 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 financialstatements, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a)    Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a)    All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)    Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CONRADO HERNANDEZ-LOPEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50414

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00675-JAH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Conrado Hernandez-Lopez appeals from his conviction following a jury trial

for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 24 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50414

Hernandez-Lopez contends that the district court erred in denying his motion

to dismiss the indictment, where the prior removal alleged in the indictment

resulted from a fundamentally unfair deportation proceeding. Specifically, he

argues that the immigration judge failed to advise him individually during his

removal proceeding that he was eligible for voluntary departure. 

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Hernandez-Lopez failed

to establish that the underlying removal order was unfair. See United States v.

Hinojosa-Perez, 206 F.3d 832, 835 (9th Cir. 2000). Hernandez-Lopez has not

shown that there was a plausible ground for relief from deportation. See United

States v. Muro-Inclan, 249 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A finding of

plausibility [in this case] would require a finding of plausibility, and therefore

prejudice, in almost every case.”) Accordingly, any due process violation did not

prejudice him. Since we agree with the district court’s determination on the issue

of prejudice, “we need not remand to the district court for further consideration.” 

United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED.
Nos. 958 and 959.

#### Pfister *v.*Northern Illinois Finance Corp. et al.

March 30, 1942.

*Mr. Elmer McClain*for petitioner. *Mr. JohnK.Newhall*for respondents.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 53786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25364]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


United States Postal Service Board of Governors; Sunshine Act 
Meeting

Board Votes To Close October 12-14, 2009, Meeting

    At its closed session meeting on September 22, 2009, the Board of 
Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to 
close to public observation its meeting to be held October 12-14, 2009, 
at the Bolger Center for Leadership Development in Potomac, Maryland. 
The Board determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION: The General Counsel of the United States 
Postal Service has certified that the meeting is properly closed under 
the Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIMES AND DATES: 
    5 p.m., Monday, October 12, 2009;
    8 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 2009; and
    8 a.m., Wednesday, October 14, 2009.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Monday, October 12 at 5 p.m. (Closed)

    1. Strategic Issues.
    2. Financial Matters.
    3. Pricing.
    4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
    5. Governors' Executive Session--Discussion of prior agenda items 
and Board Governance.

Tuesday, October 13 at 8 a.m. (Closed)

    Continuation of Monday's agenda.

Wednesday, October 14 at 8 a.m. (Closed)--(if needed)

    Continuation of Monday's agenda.

Contact Person for More Information: Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the 
Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25364 Filed 10-16-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl Edward WEBB, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6926.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 6, 2006.

Earl Edward Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Earl Edward Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Webb’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1

<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       461,643
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             478,744
<PP&E>                                       34,401
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               514,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        116,658
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  666,439
<COMMON>                                     544,238
<OTHER-SE>                                   397,961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 514,619
<SALES>                                      15,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             15,564
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             80,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (65,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (65,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                (65,075)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.01)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2547 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2547

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on triphenyltin hydroxide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

  Mr. Burris introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on triphenyltin hydroxide.

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

SECTION 1. TRIPHENYLTIN HYDROXIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.96 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to triphenyltin hydroxide) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (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>
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.15    
    


July 21,
2006 


DEGS
O&M, LLC

139 East Fourth Street

5 Atrium II

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 


Attn:
Mr. Dave Ledonne, General Manager 


        Reference
is made to the seven (7) Operation and Maintenance Agreements each dated September 13, 2004 (each an "Agreement", collectively the "Agreements") between DEGS O&M,
LLC (formerly known as Cinergy Solutions O&M LLC) ("DEGS") and the KGcn project companies signatory hereto ("KGen Companies"). 



        DEGS
and each of the KGen Companies hereby agree that subject to the Lenders Consents described below, Section 6.4 of each Agreement is amended by replacing the reference to
"sixty (60) days" contained therein to "one hundred twenty (120) days." 


        The
amendment described above shall be effective upon the date that the KGen Companies notify DEGS that the KGen Companies have received all consents and approvals of its lenders
necessary for the amendment of the Agreements contained herein ("Lenders Consents"). The KGen Companies agree that they shall provide DEGS prompt notice of their receipt of the Lender Consents. 



        Except
as amended hereby, the Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. 


[Signatures
follow] 







 


	KGEN ENTERPRISE LLC	 	KGEN NEW ALBANY LLC
	

By:	
 	

/s/ Donald E. Boyd
 Donald E. Boyd

Sr. Vice President—Operations	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ Donald E. Boyd
 Donald E. Boyd

Sr. Vice President—Operations
	

KGEN HINDS LLC	
 	

KGEN SANDERSVILLE LLC
	

By:	
 	

/s/ Donald E. Boyd
 Donald E. Boyd

Sr. Vice President—Operations	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ Donald E. Boyd
 Donald E. Boyd

Sr. Vice President—Operations
	

KGEN HOT SPRING LLC	
 	

KGEN SOUTHAVEN LLC
	

By:	
 	

/s/ Donald E. Boyd
 Donald E. Boyd

Sr. Vice President—Operations	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ Donald E. Boyd
 Donald E. Boyd

Sr. Vice President—Operations
	

KGEN MARSHALL LLC	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

By:	
 	

/s/ Donald E. Boyd
	
 	

AGREED TO AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
	 	 	Donald E. Boyd

Sr. Vice President—Operations	 	

DEGS O&M, LLC
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ David A. Ledonne

	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Name:	
 	

David A. Ledonne

	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Title:	
 	

Vice President





2











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.15
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2606 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Formaldehyde, polymer with methylphenol, 2-hydroxy-3-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]propyl ether and formaldehyde, polymer with (chloromethyl)oxirane and methylphenol, 4- 

cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylate 2-propenoate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Mr. REID introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Formaldehyde, polymer 

with methylphenol, 2-hydroxy-3-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]propyl ether and formaldehyde, polymer with 

(chloromethyl)oxirane and methylphenol, 4-cyclohexene1,2-dicarboxylate 2-propenoate. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2606 IS

1 SECTION 1. FORMALDEHYDE, POLYMER WITH METHYL2 PHENOL, 2-HYDROXY-3-[(1-OXO-2-PRO3 PENYL)OXY]PROPYL ETHER AND FORMALDE4 HYDE, POLYMER WITH 

5 (CHLOROMETHYL)OXIRANE AND METHYL6 PHENOL, 4-CYCLOHEXENE-1,2- 

7 DICARBOXYLATE 2-PROPENOATE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

9 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

10 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

11 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Formaldehyde, polymer with 

methylphenol, 2-hydroxy-3- 

[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]propyl 

ether (CAS No. 126901–56– 

2) and formaldehyde, polymer 

with (chloromethyl)oxirane 

and methylphenol, 4- 

cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylate 

2-propenoate (CAS No. 

182697–62–7) (provided for 

in subheading 3907.30.00) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

14 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

15 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Marla CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tony PHAM; Christopher Bullard; Mrs. Timmas; Tony Randall, Public Defender; Sandy Ledbetter; Christopher Collins, Esquire; Mr. Etherington; Horace Hunter, Mr. Esquire; DAVID LASSITER, Mr. Esquire, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-1556.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 15, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 17, 2006.

Marla Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. William Woodul Tunner, Thompson & McMullan, Richmond, Virginia; Guy Winston Horsley, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Christopher Collins, Richmond, Virginia; William Kerfoot Lewis, Beale, Balfour, Davidson & Etherington, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*332PER CURIAM:

Marla Crawford appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Crawford v. Pham,*No. 3:06-cv-00209-HEH (E.D.Va. Apr. 12, 2006). 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.*
ex109.htm


    Exhibit
      10.9

     

    Amendment
      to and Partial Cancellation of Consulting Agreement

    


    This
      document amends the Consulting
      Agreement between Gen2Media Corporation and Vanguard Capital, LLC. The parties
      agree that the Consulting Agreement is hereby amended to cancel any cash payment
      to Vanguard, and instead, Vanguard has agreed to accept warrants for 2,000,000
      shares of common stock of Gen2 for its services. The exercise price for these
      warrants shall be 1 cent per share, and may be exercised at any time by
      Vanguard. However, in no event will Vanguard ever be entitled to exercise any
      of
      these warrants if the exercise of same shall cause the overall beneficial
      ownership of Vanguard, or its partners, in Gen2 to exceed 9.9% in the aggregate.
      The timing of the ability of Vanguard to exercise these warrants shall be
      automatically adjusted to insure that neither Vanguard, nor any of it’s partners
      always remain below said 9.9% at all times. The shares underlying these warrants
      shall be registered along with all other investor shares. All other terms of
      the
      Consulting Agreement shall remain in effect.

     

     

    
      	Vanguard
              Capital, LLC   	 	 	Gen2Media
              Corporation	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	By:
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0006028 19-SEP-2014 09:01 AM