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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6384

BOBBY J. OLDHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT; MICHAEL W. YORK; JOSEPH G. PICKELSIMER; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; DENNIS M. ROWLAND, Special Assistant to the Director of Prisons; JENNIFER H. LANGLEY, Assistant Superintendent for Custody and Operations at Albemarle Correctional Institution; JOHN DAVIS, Unit Manager at Albemarle; MR. COOK, Programmer at Albemarle; CAPTAIN STRICKLAND; TODD W. PINION, Assistant Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-02-379-1) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 17, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby J. Oldham, Appellant Pro Se. John Payne Scherer, II, Assistant Attorney General; James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bobby J. Oldham appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp. , 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Oldham has waived appellate review of the magistrate judge’s conclusion regarding the objective component of the test to establish an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim based upon exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by failing to specifically object. SeeHelling v. McKinney , 509 U.S. 25, 35-36 (1993) (discussing Eighth Amendment standard); Odom v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr. , 349 F.3d 765, 770 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund II-OW (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells,
III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                
|                                                        
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief
Executive Officer August 8, 2003



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                          
|/s/     DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                               
|                                                          
|Douglas P. Williams Chief
Financial Officer August 8, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28283-28284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13895]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,658]


Semitool Southwest Regional Office, Phoenix, AZ; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 23, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers of Semitool Southwest Regional Office, 
Phoenix, Arizona.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active 
certification (TA-W-61,554C) which expires on July 16, 2009. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.


[[Page 28284]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13895 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 MARIA L. VARGAS MONTES,

8 Petitioner-Appellee,

9 v. NO. 31,038

10 HOWARD JOHNSON,

11 Respondent-Appellant.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY

13 Daniel Viramontes, District Judge

14 Amy C. Delaney-Hernandez

15 Deming, NM

16 for Appellee

17 Howard Johnson

18 Deming, NM

19 Pro Se Appellant

20 MEMORANDUM OPINION

21 VIGIL, Judge.

22 Appellant Howard Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s ruling with

23 regard to child support and custody. [RP 51, 70] Our March 8, 2011, notice proposed
2

1 to dismiss for lack of finality. Appellant did not file a memorandum in opposition to

2 our notice. See Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA. For reasons set forth in our notice, we

3 dismiss for lack of finality. See Frick v. Veazey, 116 N.M. 246, 247, 861 P.2d 287,

4 288 (Ct. App. 1993) (stating that the “[f]ailure to file a memorandum in opposition

5 constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice”). We lastly

6 acknowledge Appellant’s February 15, 2011, “motion for production and pretrial

7 matters.” Given our dismissal for lack of finality, however, we lack jurisdiction to

8 consider the merits of Appellant’s motion. We dismiss. 

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 _______________________________

11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

12 WE CONCUR:

13 _________________________________

14 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

15 _________________________________

16 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Entergy
Corporation's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000065984
<NAME> ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 023
   <NAME> ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   18,132,828
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  1,383,819
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       3,171,322
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     4,312,731
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,000,700
<COMMON>                                         2,461
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    4,613,572
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          2,157,912
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               6,714,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          400,005
<PREFERRED>                                    788,445
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         9,068,325
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             428,964
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  390,674
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    236,000
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               167,700
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               8,746,642
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               27,000,700
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    9,561,721
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           471,341
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   7,704,563
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   7,704,563
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                      1,857,158
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           (222,646)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               1,634,512
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       862,272
<NET-INCOME>                                   300,899
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     53,216
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  247,683
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       438,183
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      858,871
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       1,724,632
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.03
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Elwood Shepard, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:  (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 result of operations of the Company.  Date: May 11, 2007 By: /s/  Elwood Shepard Elwood Shepard Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Senior Judge Overton 

JONATHAN L. LIPSCOMB 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 2473-01-3 PER CURIAM 

 FEBRUARY 12, 2002 

QUALITY FOODS COOPERATIVE, INC. AND 

 SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

 THE SOUTHEAST 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Craig P. Tiller; Davidson, Sakolosky, 

Moseley & Tiller, P.C., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (W. Christopher Wickham; Robert Harrington & 

Associates, on brief), for appellees. 

 Jonathan L. Lipscomb (claimant) contends the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in denying him an 

award of temporary total disability benefits on the ground that 

he failed to adequately market his residual work capacity 

beginning November 17, 2000. Upon reviewing the record and the 

parties' briefs, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. 

Rule 5A:27. 

 A partially disabled employee is required to make 

reasonable efforts to market his residual earning capacity to be 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
entitled to receive continued benefits. See National Linen

Serv. v. McGuinn, 8 Va. App. 267, 269, 380 S.E.2d 31, 33 (1989). 

"In determining whether a claimant has made a reasonable effort 

to market his remaining work capacity, we view the evidence in 

the light most favorable to . . . the prevailing party before 

the commission." Id. at 270, 380 S.E.2d at 33. "What 

constitutes a reasonable marketing effort depends upon the facts 

and circumstances of each case." Greif Companies (GENESCO) v.

Sipe, 16 Va. App. 709, 715, 434 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1993). 

 Unless we can say as a matter of law that claimant's 

evidence sustained his burden of proof, the commission's 

findings are binding and conclusive upon us. See Tomko v. 

Michael's Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 

(1970). 

 On November 17, 2000, Dr. William E. Albers, an 

orthopedist, released claimant to light-duty work, consisting of 

"sit down work with [right] hand dominant work, . . . [changing] 

positions when necessary." Claimant asked employer whether any 

light-duty jobs were available. Employer told claimant there 

were no light-duty positions available. Claimant admitted that 

he made no further efforts to find suitable employment. 

 In light of claimant's failure to market his residual work 

capacity, other than his one inquiry of employer, the 

commission, as fact finder, could reasonably conclude that 

- 2 -
claimant did not make an adequate effort to find employment 

within his restrictions. 

 Based upon this record, we cannot find as a matter of law 

that claimant's evidence sustained his burden of proving that he 

adequately marketed his residual work capacity as of November 

17, 2000. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.

- 3 -
**Appendix 1**

**Fire and Aviation Preparedness Review Guide**

**Suggested Drill**

**Drill #04*Fire and Aviation Preparedness Review Guide***

**Mobile Attack**

April 2000

A-

Drill 4-1Revised 2008
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13848]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation


Notice of Charter Reestablishment

    In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Title 5, United States Code, Appendix, and Title 41, Code of 
Federal Regulations, Section 101-6.1015, with the concurrence of the 
Attorney General, I have determined that the reestablishment of the 
Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board 
(APB) is in the public interest. In connection with the performance of 
duties imposed upon the FBI by law, I hereby give notice of the 
reestablishment of the APB Charter.
    The APB provides me with general policy recommendations with 
respect to the philosophy, concept, and operational principles of the 
various criminal justice information systems managed by the FBI's CJIS 
Division.
    The APB includes representatives from local and state criminal 
justice agencies; tribal law enforcement representatives; members of 
the judicial, prosecutorial, and correctional sectors of the criminal 
justice community, as well as one individual representing a national 
security agency; a representative of Federal agencies participating in 
the CJIS Division Systems; and representatives of criminal justice 
professional associations (i.e., the American Probation and Parole 
Association; American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, Inc.; 
International Association of Chiefs of Police; National District 
Attorneys' Association; National Sheriffs' Association; Major Cities 
Chiefs' Association; Major County Sheriffs' Association; and a 
representative from a national professional association representing 
the courts or court administrators nominated by the Conference of Chief 
Justices). The Attorney General has granted me the authority to appoint 
all members to the APB.
    The APB functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Charter has been 
filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

    Dated: June 4, 2009.
Robert S. Mueller, III,
Director.
[FR Doc. E9-13848 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Bunch, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 97]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered March 15, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of eight years followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision on the conviction of robbery in the first degree and a determinate term of imprisonment of six years followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision on the conviction of robbery in the second degree, with the terms of imprisonment to run consecutively to each other.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of both crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that the testimony of a police detective improperly bolstered a complainant’s identification testimony is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v White,*95 AD3d 1045 [2012]; *People v Williams,*65 *959AD3d 709 [2009]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [6]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s motion to consolidate two indictments *(see*CPL 200.20 [2] [c]; [3], [4]; *People v Lane,*56 NY2d 1, 8 [1982]; *People v Cromwell,*99 AD3d 1017 [2012]).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Eng, PJ., Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      129
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        295
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,470
<PP&E>                                           7,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,458)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,094
<BONDS>                                          3,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,535
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,598)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,122
<SALES>                                            294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   304
<CGS>                                              993
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,556)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,556)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,556)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.56)
        

</TABLE>
Document

Exhibit 10.1C





June 4, 2022


John Rakow
[address]




Dear John,


This letter confirms the terms of your promotion to Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and your agreement to serve as Adverum’s Acting Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer.  


I am excited to share with you that your promotion is effective as of June 3, 2022.  With this promotion, your job title is Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer. This promotion, results in a new base salary of $450,000 annually commencing on June 6, 2022.  


As part of your promotion, your target bonus percentage is increasing to 40% (75% of which is based on company achievement & 25% based on individual achievement). 


In addition to your promotion, you have been approved for a grant of 250,000 options, with a grant date upon the SEC’s issuance of your CIK code, but in no event late than June 10, 2022.  You will receive a notification from E*TRADE alerting you when your equity documents are ready to view and accept.  The documents will include the grant date, vesting schedule and plan details.


In this new role, you will report directly into me with a dotted line into Peter Soparkar for matters pertaining to your role as General Counsel.   I am excited for you in your new role and how this opportunity may help you in your career development goals. I appreciate you taking on these additional responsibilities in support of Adverum’s continued growth and success.


Sincerely, 


Laurent Fischer, M.D. 
President and Chief Executive Officer