alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SEP ~ I99~

MIDDLETOWN RANCIIERIA

RESOLUTION NO.9~-o$-~)3

IN THE MATTER OF: Amending Sections 9-4., 22-2. and 4-1. (k) of the Lake Miwok Indian

Nation Tribal Gaming Ordinance, approved by the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming

Commission on May 15, 1997.

WHEREAS, The Middletown Rancheria is a federally recognized California Indian Tribe, as

defined under the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, governed under

the General Council of the Middletown Rancheria: and

WHEREAS, The Middletown Rancheria owns and operates the Twin Pine Casino as provided

for under the Tribes duly enacted Tribal Gaming Ordinance authorizing such

activities; and

WHEREAS. The Tribal Gaming Ordinances does not provide for an appeal to the Gaming

Commissions decision to issue, suspend or revoke a tribal gaming license; and

WHEREAS, The Middletown Rancheria Tribal Gaming Ordinance defines the Tribal Gaming

Commission as described in a constitution that does not exist; and

WHEREAS, The Middletown Rancheria wishes to amend the Tribal Gaming Ordinance in 0

accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act as codified at 522.3 of the (0

CFR.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Middletown Rancheria hereby amends Section 4-I.

(k) of the Tribal Gaming Ordinance to read as follows:

(k) Commission means the Tribal Gaming Commission as described in this

Ordinance of the Middletown Rancheria.

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Middletowr~ Rancheria hereby amends

Section 9-4. as follows.

9-4. The Gaming Commission shall make the decision as to whether a gaming

license shall be issued, suspended or revoked.

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Middletown Rancheria hereby amends

Section 22-2. by adding (a) as follows.

(a). Appeals of the decision of the Tribal Gaming Commission to issue, suspend

or revoke a tribal Gaming License shall be heard by a non-affiliated tribal

court competent jurisdiction within the state of California in. accordance

with procedures adopted by said court. 6~ :0! WV ~i I dJS 86

~viJ ~
SEp1

RESOLUTION NO:

Amending Sections 9-4., 22-2. and 4-I. (k) of the Lake Miwok Indian Nation Tribal Gaming

Ordinance, approved by the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission on May 15,

1997.

CERTIFICATION

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I Bradford Knight, Tribal Chairperson of the Middletown

Rancheria hereby certifies this Resolution was passed, through General Council motions,

at a special General Council meeting called for this purpose, at which a quorum was

present on August 22, 1998.

Signatur~~ ~ 2Y

Tr~1al Chairpers~n~ a

/

Signature_ W~c(4UL 9 (4fg~

~t) Secretary Da e

2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 24, 2020

b0721 

# Order

Clerk July 24, 2020

161579 & (22)

MARCIE GLOWACKI,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161579

COA: 350691

Oakland CC: 2017

- 856477

- DO

MARTIN GLOWACKI,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the July 1, 2020 order of the C ourt of Appeals is considered,

and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be

reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 13A-14(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                           AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Peak  Entertainment  Holdings,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date therein specified
(the "Report"), the undersigned,  Nicola Yeomans, as Principal Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Nicola Yeomans
---------------------------
Nicola Yeomans
Principal Financial Officer
Date:  June 7, 2004

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31(k)

CERTIFICATIONS

 
I, Jay A. Lewis, certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed these annual reports on Form 10-K of Entergy Mississippi, Inc.;  
2.
Based on my knowledge, these reports do not contain any 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 these reports;  
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in these reports, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for, the periods presented in these reports;  
4.
The registrants' other certifying officers 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrants 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 registrants, including their consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which these reports are being prepared;   
b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   
c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants' disclosure controls and procedures and presented in these reports our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by these reports based on such evaluation; and   
d) Disclosed in these reports any change in the registrants' internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants' most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants' internal control over financial reporting; and  
5.
The registrants' other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants' auditors and the audit committee of the registrants' board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants' ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants' internal control over financial reporting.

		/s/ Jay A. Lewis
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 AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 to be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about May 8, 2009 (the “Report”),
I, Peter S. Kraus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Exchange Act; and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Date:  May
      8, 2009
              /s/ Peter S. KrausPeter
      S. KrausChief
      Executive OfficerAllianceBernstein
      Holding L.P.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CURTIS LEE WATSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-88-201, CA-00-112-A)

Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Lee Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Orin Samuel Kerr, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Lee Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Watson, Nos. CR-88-201;

CA-00-112-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2000). 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
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 Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [STB Finance Docket No. 35247]

## Correction

In notice document E9-12365 beginning on page 25799 in the issue of Friday, May 29, 2009, make the following correction:

On page 25800, in the first column, under DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, in the first paragraph, lines 6-8 of the text, “603.0, at Water Valley Junction, and milepost 614.42, at Bruce Junction” should read “603.0, at Bruce Junction, and milepost 614.42, at Water Valley Junction”.

Dated: June 8, 2009.

Kulunie L. Cannon,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. E9-13746 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Exhibit 10.1


 


Loan Agreement


 


Party A (lender): Future FinTech (Hong Kong) Limited
(hereinafter referred to as “Party A”)


 


Address:


 


Party B (borrower): Wintus China Limited (hereinafter
referred to as “Party B”)


 


Address:  


 


Whereas: Party B is a company with rich resources
of target companies for investment globally. Party A intends to form a long-term strategic cooperative partnership with Party B including
cooperation with Party B in the form of equity investment in the future. Parties have reached the following agreement through friendly
negotiation:


 


1、 Party A agrees to
alone or with other shareholders and partners lend funds to Party B in the form of loan. The total loan amount lent to Party B is $5,000,000
(5 million USD).


 


2、 The purpose of the
loan is for Party B to expand its own business scale and its daily operation.


 


3、 Loan term: the loan
term is 6 months, from March 10, 2022 to September 9, 2022. After the expiration, both parties can negotiate an extension.


 


4、 The loan interest
rate is 10% per annum, and the loan interest shall be paid at maturity.


 


5、 If the borrower
requires early repayment, it shall submit an application to the lender in advance, and the borrower can prepay only with the approval
of the lender. If the borrower repays the loan early, the interest shall be reduced accordingly.


 


6、 If the borrower
fails to repay the loan on time, the lender has the right to recover the loan and charge a penalty interest in accordance with the bank’s
standard.


 


7、 Party A or its designated
third party shall transfer the loan amount to the following designated bank account of Party B:


 


Account Name: Wintus China Limited


 


Account No.:


 


Swift No.:


 


Name of the Bank:


 


Bank address:


 


8、 Representations
and Warranties:


 


(1) The borrower shall only
use the loan for the purpose agreed in the loan agreement.


 


(2) The loan to Wintus China
Limited is for expanding its own business scale and daily operation.


 


9、 Settlement of Disputes:


 


Any dispute arising from the performance of this
Agreement shall be settled by both parties through friendly negotiation or mediation by a third party. If the negotiation or mediation
fails, a lawsuit may be brought to the Hong Kong District Court.


 


10、 This agreement
shall come into force from the date when it is stamped or signed by both parties. This agreement is made in duplicate for each party to
have one copy and each copy of the agreement has the same legal effect.


 


	Party A (signature /seal):	Party B (signature / seal):
	 	 
	Date: March 10, 2022	Date:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50286

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

EDISON SANCHEZ CAICEDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(A-96-CV-011)

April 8, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edison Sanchez Caicedo appeals the district court’s denial of

his motion to vacate, set aside , or correct his sentence, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Caicedo contends that the district court

erred in finding he had not demonstrated that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel and in refusing to order an

evidentiary hearing prior to denying his motion. Caicedo also

argues that he was not required to obtain a Certificate of
Appealability
#### David BENJAMIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.D. FHSD Carl J. KOENINGSMANN, M.D., Jonathan Holder, Orthopedist Referral, M.D. Galeno, Associate Orthopedist, M.D. Lester Silver, Provider, Stephen Schwartz, Orthopedic Surgeon, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-0622-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 13, 2006.

David Benjamin, Stormville, NY, pro se.

Gregory Silbert, Assistant Solicitor General (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, on the brief), State of New York, New York, NY, for State Defendants-Appellees.

Angela M. Ribaudo, (Samantha E. Quinn, on the brief), Schiavetti, Corgan, Soscia, DiEdwards, and Nicholson, LLP, for Defendant-Appellee Jonathan Holder, M.D.

PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG, PIERRE N. LEVAL and JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant David Benjamin appeals *pro se*from a decision of the District Court granting, in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims, *see Benjamin v. Schwartz,*299 F.Supp.2d 196 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2004), and from two decisions granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment. *See Benjamin v. Koeningsmann,*Nos. 02 CV 6227, 03 CV 825, (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2004) (granting defendant Holder’s motion for summary judgment); *Benjamin v. Galeno,*415 F.Supp.2d 254 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2005) (granting remaining state defendants’ motion for summary judgment). Plaintiffs suit alleged that defendants showed deliberate indifference to his serious medicals need in violation of the Eighth Amendment during his incarceration at the Greenhaven Correctional Facility in Stormville, New York.

Upon a review of the record, and substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge McMahon’s careful and comprehensive decisions, we conclude that the District Court did not err in (1) granting, in part, defendants’ motions to dismiss, or (2) granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
[Cite as State ex rel. Porter v. Jensen, 135 Ohio St.3d 342, 2013-Ohio-998.]

T HE S TATE EX REL . P ORTER , A PPELLANT , v. J ENSEN , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Cite as State ex rel. Porter v. Jensen, 135 Ohio St.3d 342, 2013-Ohio-998.] Criminal procedure—Crim.R. 32—Judgm ent entry of conviction—Writs of procedendo and mandamus denied. (No. 2012-2065—Submitted March 13, 2013—Decided March 20, 2013.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-12-1281, 2012-Ohio-5556.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment dismissing the petition of appellant, Lamar Porter, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellee, Lucas County Court of Common Pleas Judge James D. Jensen, to issue a new sentencing entry that complies with Crim.R. 32(C). Neither mandamus nor procedendo will lie to compel an act that has already been performed. State ex rel. Culgan v.
Kimbler , 132 Ohio St.3d 480, 2012-Ohio-3310, 974 N.E.2d 88. Porter’s sentencing entry fully complied with Crim.R. 32(C) and constituted a final, appealable order because it set forth the f act of his convictions, the sentence, the judge’s signature, and the time stamp indicating its entry upon the journal by the
clerk. See State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted , 131 Ohio St.3d 125, 2012-Ohio-109, 961 N.E.2d 192, ¶ 2. Notwithstanding Porter’s argument to the contrary, Crim.R. 32(C) did not require Judge Jensen to sp ecify that the sentence did not include restitution. The judge’s sentencing entry contained a full resolution of the counts upon which Porter was convicted. A court is not required to include in the judgment entry something not orde red as part of the sentence. Judgment affirmed.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

__________________ Lamar Porter, pro se. Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kevin A. Pituch, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

_____________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SEAN ANTHONY ROBINSON, a/k/a Black,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:06-cr-00204-HEH-1)

Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 28, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Anthony Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, 

II, Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean Anthony Robinson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order granting his motion to hold his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence in abeyance 

pending a Supreme Court decision. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the district 

court has not yet issued a dispositive order on Robinson’s 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ADRIAN RAYMOND WHITE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

No. 97-6673

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.

(CA-97-1237-S)

Submitted: July 21, 1998

Decided: August 11, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Adrian White, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief

on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). Appellant's conviction became final in March 1995. On April

22, 1997, Appellant filed his § 2254 petition. The district court denied

relief because Appellant filed his petition outside the one-year limitation period imposed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). Pursuant to our recent decision in Brown v. Angelone, ___

F.3d ___, Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14,

1998), Appellant had until April 23, 1997, in which to file a timely

petition. Accordingly, because Appellant filed his§ 2254 petition

before April 23, 1997, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate

the district court's order, and remand this case for consideration on

the merits. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2