alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Christopher T. JAMES, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Rick Jackson, Defendants— Appellees.

No. 06-7147.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.

Christopher T. James, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

*266Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Christopher T. James appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on both his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. *See James v. North Carolina,*3:06-cv-00220, 2006 WL 1431639, 2006 WL 1716406 (W.D.N.C. May 17, 2006 *&*June 19, 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.*
NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER 

CASUAL PAYMENT CENTER 

A SERVICE FIRST ORGANIZATION 

CASUAL PAYMENT CENTER MS 270 

3833 S DEVELOPMENT AVE BOISE, ID 83705-5354 

EMAIL: CASUALPAY@BLM.GOV 

PHONE: 877-471-2262 FAX: 208-433-6405 

Conditional Offer of 

Federal Employee Health Benefits Form 

Check one: BIA BLM FWS NPS 

NAME: SSN/ECI: 

PHONE: E-MAIL: 

................................................................................................................................................... 

As an Administratively Determined Emergency Worker (AD/Casual), you will be eligible for Federal Employee 

Health Benefits (FEHB) when you work 130 hours per month for 90 consecutive days. This coverage includes a 31 

day extension of FEHB following employment termination. 

More information about the FEHB program is available on the OPM website: https://www.opm.gov/healthcareinsurance/healthcare/plan-information/plans/. 

As an AD/Casual, I understand that if I work 130 hours per month for 90 days, I am eligible for FEHB coverage. 

I elect FEHB upon meeting the above eligibility criteria. 

I decline coverage in a Federal Employee Health Benefits plan. 

**I understand if at any time I choose to receive more information, I can contact the Casual Payment 

Center. 

................................................................................................................................................... 

By signing below, I attest I am the person named above and I have read and understand the information 

presented. 

SIGNATURE: DATE: 

Privacy Act Statement: Information on this form is collected under the authority of the Administratively Determined (AD) Pay Plan. Information collected via this form 

is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974 and Privacy Act System of Records Notice DOI-85. The primary use of this information is to start, stop, or change entitlements 

and to process any voluntary or involuntary deductions on pay and leave issues. The information you furnish will be used to identify records properly associated with 

you, to obtain additional information to update your record, if necessary, and to determine any present or future entitlement. Disclosure may be made only to 

authorized persons according to Title 5 USC 552a and for uses described in System of Records Notices DOI-85. Submission of the information in this form is voluntary; 

however, requests will not be completed without the information needed to process the request. 

Revised 01/2022
----

Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 

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

I, John L. Threshie Jr., CEO of The Tirex Corporation (the"Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge: 

1. This quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period endedMarch 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/________________ John L. Threshie Jr., CEO 

Date: May 14, 2004 

 

----

Exhibit 32.2 
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Michael Ash, CFO of The Tirex Corporation (the "Company") do herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

1. This quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period endedMarch 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/________________ Michael Ash, CFO 

Date: May 14, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0112

SHARON UHLIG,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

ALLIED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Defendant and Appellee.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Charles J. Tornabene, Attorney at Law, 3250 

Loraine Drive, Missoula, MT 59803, (406)493-1331, whose name appears next on the 

list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which 

is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this March 17, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Paul Robert Haffeman, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 2103, Great Falls, MT 59403,

paul.haffeman@dhhtlaw.com, (406)761-5243

Paul M. Sharkey, Attorney at Law, 2801 Raymond, Missoula, MT 59802,

paul@sharlkeylawfirm.com, (406)531-4487

03/17/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0112
Document

Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT TO THE
CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATON
2017 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
The Clearwater Paper Corporation 2017 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), as adopted by the Board of Directors of Clearwater Paper Corporation (the “Corporation”) on February 28, 2017 and as subsequently amended, is hereby further amended as follows effective as of May 16, 2022: 
Section 17(c) of the Plan is amended to read as follows:
(c)    Clawback.  Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, the Corporation reserves the right to cancel or adjust the amount of any Award if the financial statements of the Corporation on which the calculation or determination of the Award was based are subsequently restated due to error or misconduct and, in the judgment of the Committee, the financial statements as so restated would have resulted in a smaller or no Award if such information had been known at the time the Award had originally been calculated or determined. In addition, in the event of such a restatement, the Corporation reserves the right to require a Participant to repay to the Corporation the amount by which the Award as originally calculated or determined exceeds the Award as adjusted pursuant to the preceding sentence.  Without limiting the foregoing provisions of this Section 17(c), and notwithstanding any other provision of this Plan, each Award granted under this Plan, and the Shares or other compensation paid or payable pursuant thereto, shall be subject to such deductions and clawback as may be required to be made pursuant to federal or state law, government regulation or stock exchange listing requirement (or any policy adopted by the Corporation pursuant to any such law, government regulation or stock exchange listing requirement).
In addition, in the event the Committee reasonably determines that a Participant engaged in conduct that resulted in reputational harm to the Corporation, such Participant’s unpaid Awards shall be subject to termination by the Committee in its sole discretion and without consideration, and such Participant shall also pay back to the Corporation all or a portion of any Award that has been paid, in each case subject to this Section 17(c), without consideration and as determined by Committee in its sole discretion.
To record adoption of this Amendment by the Board of Directors, Clearwater Paper Corporation has caused its authorized officer to execute the same.


Date:  May 16, 2022                CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION

                        By:      /s/ Kari Moyes
                        Name:    Kari G. Moyes
                        Title:    Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION****1**     Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Jean-Loup Romet-Lemonne, M.D., the Chief Executive Officer of IDMPharma, Inc. (the “Company”), and Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte, the Acting Principal Financial andAccounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:**1. **The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and**2. **The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report andresults of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.Dated: August 14, 2006     /s/ Jean-Loup Romet-Lemonne   /s/ Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte     Jean-Loup Romet-Lemonne, M.D.   Hervé Duchesne de LamotteChief Executive Officer   Acting Principal Financial and Accounting Officer 1 This certification accompanies the Form10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of IDMPharma, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of theForm 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained insuch filing.
#### DUNN v. PARKER et al.

Civ. No. 18866.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

June 22, 1943.

Ralph A. Cusick, of Washington, D. C. for plaintiff.

Charles F. Wilson, of Washington, D. C., for defendant William A. Parker.

PINE, District Judge.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to establish a lien upon a fund held by the Secretary of *374the Treasury, defendant herein, for the benefit of one Parker, also defendant herein. He also seeks injunctive relief and specific performance of an agreement between himself and defendant Parker.

Defendant Secretary of the Treasury has been served with process, and has answered. Defendant Parker has not been personally served, but an Order of Publication has been entered by this Court, which has been published pursuant thereto.

Defendant Parker has -moved to vacate the Order of Publication against him, and has moved to dismiss the action. He claims that he has not been personally served with process, and that this Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, in that the alleged lien relied upon by the plaintiff cannot be enforced because of the provisions of Sec. 9(b) of the Settlement of Mexican Claims Act of 1942, Public No. 814, approved December 18, 1942, 22 U.S.C.A. § 668(b), which provides that payments thereunder shall be made only to the person or persons on behalf of whom an award or appraisal is made, with certain exceptions which do not exist in this case.

In view of the prohibitions of this statute, the rule announced in Jones v. Rutherford, 26 App.D.C. 114, and frequently approved thereafter, more recently in Morgenthau v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 68 App.D.C. 163, 94 F.2d 632, relied on by plaintiff, is inapplicable to this case. I am therefore of the opinion that plaintiff’s action, so far as it relates to, or is based upon, the establishment of a lien, does not come within the purview of Sec. 13—108, D.C.Code 1940, providing for publication as to non-residents, as interpreted and applied in the cases above mentioned. The Motion to Vacate the Order of Publication should therefore be granted.

However, the complaint is not predicated solely on the establishméñt of a lien, but seeks an injunction and specific performance against defendant Parker personally ; and, if he should be personally served, this Court would have jurisdiction to. give appropriate relief. The fact that he has not been served personally since the action was filed on March 4, 1943, is not conclusive that he will not be served personally in tlje future, and therefore the. Motion to Dismiss the action should not be granted as to defendant Parker.

Defendant Secretary of the Treasury has asserted in his answer defenses included in Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., but has not moved for a hearing and determination thereof as contemplated by Rule 12(d), F.R.C.P., and therefore no decision is made thereon at this time.

Counsel will prepare' appropriate order.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6415

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LOUIS NOMAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CR-95-65, CA-95-1140-2)

Submitted: February 4, 1997 Decided: March 11, 1997

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis Nomar, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110

Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nomar, No. CR-95-

65; CA-95-1140-2 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 27, 1996). 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Roy CROSBY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7117.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 7, 2006.

*244John Henry Blume, III, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, New York, Cheryl Johns Sturm, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Nancy Chastain Wicker, Kelly Elizabeth Shackelford, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South 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:

Jeffrey Roy Crosby 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 Crosby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2186

LAWRENCE E. MATTISON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DENIS R. MCDONOUGH, United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. ( 4:19

- cv - 00018

- RAJ

- LRL )

Submitted : March 31, 2022 Decided: April 8, 2022

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lawrence Eliot Mattison , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2186 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/08/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Eliot Mattison appeals the district court’s order denying his postjudgment motions for reconsideration, to amend his complaint, and for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’ s order. Mattison v. McDonough , No. 4:19

- cv - 00018

- RAJ

- LRL (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisio nal
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-2186 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/08/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
NICC Flight Tracking

FLIGHT DATE 4. Aircr

FAA N#

1. Initial request information Cost-Accounting Code(s): Billee Code (OAS A/C only): Pax Sea

Initial Date/Time: To/From: Phone Number: Make/MMission Objectives/Special Needs: Color: 

Vendor: Phone NPilot(s): 

2. Passenger/Cargo Information – Indicate Chief of Party with an asterisk ( * )

Name/Type of Cargo 

(last name, initial) 

LBS/ 

CU ft 

Order/Request 

Number 

Dept 

Arpt 

Dest 

Arpt 

Return 

to 

Name/Type of Cargo 

(last name, initial) 

LBS/ 

CU ft 

Order/Request 

Number 

3. Flight Itinerary (For Mission-Type Flights, Provide Points of Departure/Arrival and Attach Map with Detailed Flight Route and K

DEPART WITH DEPART FROM Enroute ARRIVE AT DROP OFF Key Points 

Date No. PAX Lbs Airport/ Place ETD ATD ETE Airport/ Place ETA ATA No. PAX Lbs (D/O Points, P/U Point

+ + + + + + 

National Interagency Coordination Center: Flt Following (800) 994-6312 / Office (208) 387-5400 / Fax (208) 387-5414 or 5663 Notes: 

Fl

HELICOPTER 

FIXED - Ops 

+

FIXED - Small Trans

FIXED - Airtanker

REVISION # ____
----

Exhibit 32.1 

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

I, John L. Threshie Jr., CEO of The Tirex Corporation (the "Company") dohereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

1. 

This QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and 

2. 

The information contained inthe report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 

*/s/ John L. Threshie Jr.,               * John L. Threshie Jr.,CEO 

Date: November 11, 2008 

 

----
No. 809.

#### Summers *v.*Rice et al.

March 2, 1942.

*Jennie Summers, pro se. Paul Bice*and *Mabel Bice, pro se.*

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further *in forma pauperis,*denied.
[938 NE2d 965, 912 NYS2d 532]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Brun, Appellant.

Decided October 26, 2010

*876APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Norman Trabulus,*New York City, for appellant.

*Kathleen M. Rice, District*Attorney, Mineola *(Andrea M. Di-Gregorio*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant’s application for a writ of error coram nobis granted, the Appellate Division’s January 2009 order of modification (58 AD3d 862 [2d Dept 2009]) vacated, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for a de novo determination of the People’s appeal.

Pursuant to the Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department, on a People’s appeal to that court, if a defendant was represented by assigned counsel at the trial court,

> “such assignment shall remain in effect and counsel shall continue to represent the defendant as the respondent on the appeal until entry of the order determining the appeal and until counsel shall have performed any additional applicable duties imposed upon him by these rules, or until counsel shall have been otherwise relieved of his assignment” (22 NYCRR 671.3 [f]).

Here, although he informed defendant of the People’s appeal, defendant’s assigned trial counsel failed to represent defendant on that appeal. The Appellate Division, apparently unaware that defendant had been represented by assigned trial counsel, determined the People’s appeal, noting no appearances by defendant (58 AD3d 862 [2009]).

Defendant thereafter applied for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging that he had been deprived of counsel on the People’s appeal in violation of section 671.3 (f). The Appellate Division denied the writ, stating that defendant “failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel” (64 AD3d 611, 612 [2d Dept 2009]).

Because defendant’s trial counsel failed to comply with the terms of 22 NYCRR 671.3 (f), defendant was deprived of *877appellate counsel to which he was entitled. Accordingly, the Appellate Division should have granted defendant’s application for a writ of error coram nobis. Although a writ of error coram nobis generally raises the claim that defendant received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the writ is also a proper vehicle for addressing the complete deprivation of appellate counsel that occurred here.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.