alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7774

NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD MURPHY; ROBERT C. MILLER, ROBERT A. CLAYTON, M.D.; E. G. ELIAS, Defendants - Appellees, and ROY WHITEHOUSE, Regional Administrator; ROBERT GRANGER; RONALD JONES, Physician Assistant; JANE DOE, Registered Nurse; JOHN DOE, Physician Assistant; JAMES WRIGHT, Health Services Administrator; SCOTT D. CORLEW, M.D.; BRYON K. BARTLE, M.D.; ALLEASE SLOAN; NAVZAT TURKMAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-91-1166-K) Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: June 30, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Carol A. Zuckerman, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:Nicholas Jones appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants Ronald Jones, Robert A. Clayton, Allease Sloan, Nevzat Turkman, Scott D. Corlew, Bryon K. Bartle, and E.G. Elias in an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), and granting summary judgment on all allegations except as to the claim of inadequate medical treatment for suture wire remaining in Jones’s abdomen following hernia surgery. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm primarily on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Murphy , No. CA-91-1166-K (D. Md. July 22, 1992). We further grant Defendant Clayton’s and Elias’s motion and memorandum to strike Jones’s Reply to the Informal Brieffiled by Defendants. We also deny as moot the motion of Roy Whitehouse and Robert Granger to dismiss the case as to them. 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
Exhibit 10.8



Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of KT Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|                     |  | 
|Dated: June 25, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    YONG-KYUNG LEE
|                     |  |  |  |                      
|                     |  |  |  |                      



|                     |  |  |  |                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------
|                     |  | 
|Dated: June 25, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    JEONG-SOO SUH
|                     |  |  |  |                     
|                     |  |  |  |                     

---

A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to KT Corporation and will be retained by KT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION



      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rent-Way,
Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2002
(the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:   December 27, 2002                  /s/William E. Morgenstern
                                               ------------------------
                                               William E. Morgenstern,
                                               Chief Executive Officer



Dated:   December 27, 2002                  /s/William A. McDonnell
                                               -----------------------
                                               William A. McDonnell,
                                               Chief Financial Officer
**Appendix 1**

**Fire and Aviation Preparedness Review Guide**

**Suggested Drill**

**Drill #10*Fire and Aviation Preparedness Review Guide***

**Helitack/Initial Attack**

April 2000

A-

Drill 10-1Revised 2008
EXHIBIT 10.3 

**IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS, LTD.**

**AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO 2006 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN**

This is Amendment No. 4 to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (this “Amendment”), dated as of June 24, 2008, of ImmunoCellularTherapeutics, Ltd., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). All capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). 

WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors have determined to amend the Plan to increase the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock available forgrant to an eligible person during any twelve-month period under the Plan, with such increase to be subject to approval by the Company’s stockholders; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan as set forth herein: 

Section 3 is hereby deletedin its entirety and is restated to read as follows, with such amendment and restatement to be subject to approval by the Company’s stockholders: 

“3. STOCK SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN; MAXIMUM NUMBER OF GRANTS

Subject to theprovisions of Sections 6.1.1 and 8.2 of this Plan, the total number of shares of Common Stock which may be offered, or issued as restricted stock or on the exercise of Options or SARs under the Plan shall not exceed three million four hundredthousand (3,400,000) shares of Common Stock. The shares subject to an Option or SAR granted under the Plan which expire, terminate or are cancelled unexercised shall become available again for grants under this Plan. If shares of restrictedstock awarded under the Plan are forfeited to the Company or repurchased by the Company, the number of shares forfeited or repurchased shall again be available under the Plan. Where the exercise price of an Option is paid by means of theoptionee’s surrender of previously owned shares of Common Stock or the Company’s withholding of shares otherwise issuable upon exercise of the Option as may be permitted herein, only the net number of shares issued and which remainoutstanding in connection with such exercise shall be deemed “issued” and no longer available for issuance under this Plan. No eligible person shall be granted Options or other awards during any twelve-month period covering more than sixhundred thousand (600,000) shares.” 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the datefirst written above.
EXHIBIT 23

Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 of our reports dated
March 6, 2008 (the report on the audit of consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph for the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers
Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans), relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, and the effectiveness of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporations internal
control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

March 6, 2008



|                                      |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|ampco pittsburgh | 2007 annual report |  |  |  |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2665 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2665

    To extend the suspension of duty on mixtures of cyhalothrin and 
                         application adjuvants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the suspension of duty on mixtures of cyhalothrin and 
                         application adjuvants.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF CYHALOTHRIN AND APPLICATION ADJUVANTS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.09 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to mixtures of cyhalothrin and 
application adjuvants) 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>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge Mauriccio VASQUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-8414.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 23, 2009.

Decided: May 4, 2009.

*284Jorge Mauriccio Vasquez, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jorge Mauriccio Vasquez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to impose a new sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Vasquez,*No. 3:06-cr-00147-RJC-DCK-2 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2008). 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.*
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Norman F. Swanton, certify that:     1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofWarren Resources, Inc.;     2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairlypresent 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 other certifying officers and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and 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 within those    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 this report    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 over financial 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;     5) The registrant’s other certifying officers and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over the financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors:     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     /s/ Norman F. Swanton       Norman F. Swanton,     Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 15, 2005
#### In the Matter of Fawaz A., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Franklyn B.C., Appellant, et al., Respondent; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[978 NYS2d 39]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Kelly A. O’Neill Levy, J.), entered on or about March 30, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding determination of neglect by the infliction of excessive corporal punishment, transferred custody of the subject child to *551petitioner Administration for Children’s Services until the next permanency hearing, and directed appellant to refrain from inflicting corporal punishment on the child and to continue to attend family therapy and individual counseling until no longer recommended, unanimously affirmed insofar as it brings up for review the fact-finding determination of neglect, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed as moot, without costs.

The court properly found that appellant maternal uncle neglected the subject child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on him and permitting the babysitter to do the same, based upon the testimony of the child’s teacher and a caseworker that they observed bruises on the child’s body, which the child attributed to corporal punishment by appellant and the babysitter *(see Nicholson v Scoppetta,*3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]).

The appeal from the placement terms of the dispositional order is moot, since the placement terms of the order have expired by their own terms, and were superseded by subsequent orders *(see Matter of Fred Darryl B., 41*AD3d 276, 277 [1st Dept 2007]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Fiscal Service

# AGENCY:

Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This is Supplement No. 3 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2009 Revision, published July 1, 2009, at 74 FR 31536.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Notice is hereby given that the Certificates of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above-named companies under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as acceptable sureties on Federal bonds were terminated effective October 8, 2009. Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2009 Revision, to reflect this change.

With respect to any bonds currently in force with these companies, bond approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from these companies, and bonds that are continuous in nature should not be renewed.

                    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at                     *http://www.fms.treas.gov/​c570.*

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Dated: October 9, 2009.

Laura Carrico,

Acting Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division.

[FR Doc. E9-25298 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
<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>                                                              5,660
<SECURITIES>                                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       4,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          (25)
<INVENTORY>                                                         1,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   11,661
<PP&E>                                                              5,403
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     (1,698)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     22,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               4,646
<BONDS>                                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                              273
<OTHER-SE>                                                         17,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       22,346
<SALES>                                                             9,679
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    9,863
<CGS>                                                               3,694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       9,312
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                       255
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          396
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  (141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         (141)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (0.01)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6151

ANTHONY RUMONT ROBERTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN MASSIE; S. E. SCOTT, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees, and L. M. SAUNDERS, Warden, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-808-7) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Rumont Roberts, App ellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Rumont Roberts appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reconsideration but dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and agree that Roberts’ complaint fails to state a claim. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. SeeRoberts v. Massie , No. CA-02-808-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2003). 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