alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-60334

Summary Calendar

 

RETHA J. HARRELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER

OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(4:99-CV-135-LG)

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

December 17, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Retha J. Harrell appeals the district

court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) lawsuit seeking review

of the denial of disability benefits and supplemental security

income. Harrell argues that the decision issued by the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was contrary to the weight of the

law and evidence and that the ALJ applied the wrong legal standards

in determining that Harrell was not fully credible regarding her

subjective complaints. 
2

Our review of the ALJ’s decision “is limited to determining

whether that decision is supported by substantial evidence and

whether the proper legal standards were applied.” Ripley v.

Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). A finding of no

substantial evidence is appropriate only if no credible evidentiary

choices or medical findings support the decision. Johnson v.

Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1988). 

The ALJ considered all of the evidence presented at the

administrative hearing as well as all of Harrell’s medical records

and subjective complaints. The ALJ determined that although

Harrell had severe impairments, she was still capable of performing

substantial gainful activity. These findings are supported by

substantial evidence. See Johnson, 864 F.2d at 343-44. 

Furthermore, the ALJ has primary responsibility for assessing

the credibility of the claimant’s subjective complaints. See

Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 480 (5th Cir. 1988). In this

matter, the ALJ properly considered Harrell’s subjective complaints

and determined that the objective medical evidence and her

testimony regarding her daily activities were inconsistent with her

subjective complaints. It was within the ALJ’s discretion to make

such determination. See Griego v. Sullivan, 940 F.2d 942, 945 (5th

Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.3

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO EIGHTH AMENDED AND RESTATED

STOCKHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT

Dated as of July 9, 2013

 

Reference is made to that certain Eighth Amended and Restated Stockholders’ Agreement, dated July 27, 2012 (the “Stockholders’ Agreement”), by and among Onconova Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”) and the Stockholders (as that term is defined in the Stockholders’ Agreement).  All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the respective meanings given to them in the Stockholders’ Agreement.

 

1.                    Amendments.  Pursuant to Section 10 of the Stockholders’ Agreement, the Corporation and the Stockholders agree to amend the Stockholders Agreement as follows:

 

a.              The eighth paragraph of Section 1 of the Stockholders’ Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

 

““Designated Offering” means a firmly underwritten public offering registered under the Securities Act, where the gross proceeds to the Corporation from such offering, after deducting underwriters discounts, are not less than $25,000,000.”

 

b.              A new paragraph (j) is added to Section 15 of the Stockholders’ Agreement as follows

 

“(j)          The provisions of this Section 15 shall terminate upon the consummation of a Designated Offering.”

 

2.                    Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be exclusively governed by and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the Delaware, without reference to the choice of law or conflicts of law principles thereof.

 

3.                      Miscellaneous.  This Amendment shall be deemed to be part of and incorporated into the Stockholders’ Agreement. Except to the extent specifically amended hereby, the provisions of the Stockholders’ Agreement shall remain unmodified, and the Stockholders’ Agreement is hereby confirmed as being in full force and effect.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 2, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                           5,584
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                        39
<INVENTORY>                                      5,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,479
<PP&E>                                          77,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,231
<BONDS>                                          4,083
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,758
<SALES>                                         27,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,123
<CGS>                                           22,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,030
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,365
<INCOME-TAX>                                       932
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,433
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,433
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.8


 


OneAMENDMENT TO LEASE


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO LEASE is made and entered
into as of          May 23, 2013         ,by
and between


	Crest Development LLC formerly Freeway Ventures LLC	("Lessor')
	and Simulations Plus, Inc.	("Lessee").


 


WHEREAS, on or about          9/12/05         
a Lease was entered into by and between Lessor and Lessee relating to certain real property commonly known as:     42505
10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534     (the "Premises"), and


 


WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee [x] have [ ]
have not previously amended said Lease, and


 


WHEREAS, the Lessor and Lessee now desire
to amend said Lease,


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for payment of TEN DOLLARS
and other good and valuable consideration to Lessor, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties mutually
agree to make the following additions and modifications to the Lease:


 


	T 	TERM: The Expiration Date is hereby £ advanced T extended to February 2, 2017
	 	 
	£	AGREED USE: The Agreed Use is hereby modified to:
	 	 
	T	BASE RENT ADJUSTMENT: Monthly Base Rent shall be as follows:    no change to base rent of $24,272.42 per month.  Annual increases to be 3% per year; first increase to be January 1, 2015.  Estimated Triple Net Charge payment to remain at $2000.00 per month.
	 	 
	£	OTHER: Lessee to have free Base Rent for the period of June, July and August of 2013.  Lessee to have (2) Two Year Options.


 


This Agreement shall not be construed against
the party preparing it, but shall be construed as if all parties jointly prepared this Agreement and any uncertainty and ambiguity
shall not be interpreted against any one party.


 


All other terms and conditions of this
Lease shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect except as specifically amended herein.


 


EXECUTED as of the day and year first above
written.


 


	By Lessor:	 	By Lessee: 
	Crest Development LLC	 	Simulations Plus Inc.
	BY:	   /s/ Gary S. Shafer	 	By:	   /s/ Walter Woltosz
	Name Printed: Gary S. Shafer	 	Name Printed: Walter Woltosz
	Title: Member	 	Title: CEO
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	By:	   /s/ Momoko Beran
	Name Printed:	 	Name Printed: Momoko Beran
	Title:	 	Title: CFO


 


NOTICE: These forms are often modified
to meet changing requirements of law and industry needs. Always write or call to make sure you are utilizing the most current form:
AIR Commercial Real Estate Association, 800 W 6th Street, Suite 800, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Telephone No.: (213) 687-8777. Fax
No.: (213) 687-8616.


 


 


PAGE 1 OF 1
Exhibit 32

                                ASHLAND INC.

                         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 Annual  Report of Ashland Inc.  (the  "Company") on
Form  10-K/A  for the period  ended  September  30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the  undersigned,  James J.  O'Brien,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the
Company,  and J.  Marvin  Quin,  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, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)   The  Report  fully  complies,  in all  material  respects,  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 as of and for the periods presented in the report.

The foregoing  certification  is provided  solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is
not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.

 /s/ James J. O'Brien
James J. O'Brien
Chief Executive Officer
November 8, 2004

 /s/ J. Marvin Quin
J. Marvin Quin
Chief Financial Officer
November 8, 2004


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to Ashland  Inc.  and will be retained by Ashland  Inc.  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1126

MARY HART; JOSEPH HART,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

ARTHUR ELDER; BERNETT & JACKSON REALTY, INCORPORATED; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-96-2414-WMN)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 30, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Hart, Joseph Hart, Appellants Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia,

United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's order granting summary

judgment in their breach of contract action. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Hart v. Elder, No. CA-96-2414-WMN (D. Md. Jan. 7, 1998).

Appellants were not entitled to a jury trial because their claims

were properly decided by the district court on summary judgment.

Also, Appellants failed to raise their defamation claim before the

district court, and the claim may not be raised before this court

for the first time on appeal. See Spencer v. Murray, 5 F.3d 758,

762 (4th Cir. 1993). Similarly, we decline to review Appellants'

request for relief for their children and neighbors because these

people were not parties to the complaint. Finally, we deny Appellants' Omnibus Motion seeking a stay of proceedings in 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
#### CAMPBELL v. AMERICAN FABRICS CO.

No. 1412.

District Court, E. D. New York.

April 30, 1942.

*Geist &*Netter, of New York *City*(Morris A. Marks, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Frederick S. Duncan, of New York City (Edward K. Hanlon, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This motion to quash a subpoena is made under Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

Under that rule the question presented for my consideration is was it unreasonable or oppressive? There is no contention urged by the defendant that there should be any advancement by the plaintiff of the reasonable cost of the production of the books and papers mentioned in the subpoena.

In rendering this opinion I am not passing on the question of whether the evidence sought is relevant, material, or competent, as that question is left for determination by the Court on the trial, if any of such books, or papers, should be offered in evidence.

The subpoena is not unreasonable, because, if plaintiff be correct as to their value, as evidence, he should have opportunity to offer them, and to receive a direct ruling on any objections thereto.

The production of the books and papers will not be burdensome, if defendant shall have them at their New York office, and produce them when requested on the trial.

Motion denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, P. Bruce Camacho, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Union Security Insurance Company;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 14, 2005         /s/ P. Bruce Camacho   P. Bruce Camacho   President and Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 24, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:                

*1. Benjamin W. Lindsey, and Benjamin W. Lindsey, Jr.*, both of Lenox, Georgia; to acquire voting shares of Robinson Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Bank of Lenox, both of Lenox, Georgia.                

**B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

*1. The Dorothy F. Baggerly Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, Steve Baggerly as Trustee*, both of Guymon, Oklahoma; to become part of the family group acting in concert to acquire voting shares of Panhandle Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Bank of the Panhandle, both in Guymon, Oklahoma.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 5, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-13610 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

July 6, 2012

h0703

Order 

July 6, 2012

144168

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144168

COA: 302288

Oakland CC: 2007-216103-FH

CAMILO ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

Chaidez v United States, cert gtd ___ US ___; 132 S Ct 2101; ___ L Ed 2d ___ (2012), is 

pending before the United States Supreme Court and that the decision in that case may 

resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the 

application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.
97-454.

#### State v. Johnson.

Hamilton App. No. C-950493. On motion for leave to'file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
# ALL

# Full-Partial
<PAGE>


                                                                    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

         In connection with the annual report of Atlas Mining Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William T. Jacobson, Chief Executive Officer and principal 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:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 3(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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/ William T. Jacobson                                       April 11, 2003
------------------------------------
William T. Jacobson
Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brendan J. Rhodes, Appellant.

Submitted November 19, 2012;

decided December 11, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and John A. Girando, Esq., care of D.J. & J.A. Girando, Esqs., 101 South Salina Street, Suite 1010, Syracuse, New York 13202 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.