alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________________________

No. 99-40127 Summary Calender

_________________________________________

WILLIE BENTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JEFFREY TAYLOR, Correctional Officer; JIMMY PACE, Correctional Captain, Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 9:96-CV-82

__________________________________________

November 23, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM 1 : Willie Benton, a Texas prisoner (#537558), appeals from the district court’s order granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants Jeffery Taylor and Jimmy Pace in Benton’s 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights action. In deciding Benton’s excessive force claim, the district court relied upon our decision in Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997), to conclude that Benton’s injries were de
minimis and thus could not form the basis of a Section 1983 claim. The district court did not have
the benefit of our recent decision in Gomez v. Chandler , 163 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 1999), in which we elaborated upon the defeinitnion of “ de minimis ” injuries in a factual context more similar to
the instant case than Siglar . There remain genuine issues of material fact about, inter alia , whether the application of force was even necessary in Benton’s case, whether defendant Taylor’s assault2

caused Benton any long-lasting injuries. The district court’s order granting summary judgment further proceeding in light of Gomez

. Benton’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED as unnecessary. VACATED AND REMANDED; REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Alcide, Appellant.

Submitted July 16, 2012;

decided August 28, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
97-534.

#### State v. Nemeth.

Jefferson App. No. 95JE32.

Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Daniel R. Ouzts, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Medicore, Inc.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does 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 this annual
report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present 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 annual report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant and we 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 annual report is being prepared;

            (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
of the period covered by this annual 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of any
annual report) 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 officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's 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 registrant's 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 registrant's internal
controls.

                                     /s/ Daniel R. Ouzts
Date: March 31, 2005                --------------------------------------------
                                    DANIEL R. OUZTS,Vice President of Finance,
                                    Principal Financial Officer and Treasurer
**Drill #02*Fire and Aviation Preparedness Review Guide***

**Initial Report From Scene**

Drill 2-1Revised 2008
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">519 Milford Street, LLC, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Josephine Banks, Appellant, Dorran Floyd and Joeda Floyd, Tenants. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Josephine Banks, appellant pro se.Gelfand Law Firm, LLP (Jacob N. Gelfand of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Zhuo Wang, J.), dated August 9, 2018. The order denied a motion by tenant Josephine Banks to vacate a stipulation of settlement, and, in effect, the final judgment entered pursuant thereto on February 15, 2018 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this nonpayment proceeding, Josephine Banks (tenant) and landlord entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement dated February 14, 2018 in which it was agreed, among other things, that landlord would waive rent/use and occupancy payments if all tenants and occupants of the subject apartment vacated by June 30, 2018. A final judgment was entered on February 15, 2018, pursuant to the stipulation, awarding possession to landlord. In July 2018, tenant moved to vacate the stipulation and, in effect, the final judgment on the ground that a judgment of foreclosure and sale had been entered on May 8, 2018 with respect to the building in which the subject apartment is situated. The Civil Court denied the motion, and tenant appeals.</p><p>Tenant has not identified any basis for reversal of the order. Furthermore, the Civil Court properly determined that landlord has standing to enforce the final judgment of possession until the transfer of the deed pursuant to a foreclosure sale (<i>see Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v Childs Co.</i>,230 NY 285 [1921]; <i>Dulberg v Ebenhart</i>, 68 AD2d 323 [1979];<i> Mason v Lenderoth</i>,88 App Div 38 [1903]; <a href="../2018/2018_50483.htm" target="_blank"><i>Minicozzi v Heffernan</i>, 59 Misc 3d 133</a>[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50483[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2018]), and there is no evidence in the record that such a sale has taken place.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed. </p><p>WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: January 31, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
,J.

Douglas Cherry Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 1

/ et-A ti-t4.; , J. Hardesty

cc: Hon. Kimberly A. Wanker, District Judge The Law Firm of Nathan L. Gent, PLLC Nye County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk Christopher James Willing

'We deny as moot respondent's motion to dismiss appeal filed on August 22, 2014.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 194Th 41),E11/

9.
Exhibit 10.1


 

 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO LEASE-
July 2013


 


This FIRST
AMENDMENT TO LEASE
(this "Amendment")
is made and
entered into as
of July 1, 2013,
by and between
Irvine Business Properties, a
California General Partnership ("Lessor"),
and Pro-Dex, Inc. a Colorado Corporation ('Lessee")
with respect to that certain Standard Industrial Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease-Net
Lease between Lessor and Lessee dated as of August 3, 2007
(the Lease).


 


This Amendment
confirms Pro-Dex, Inc.
has not exercised
its Option to
Terminate.  The base rent
will be reduced
from $38,043.00 per
month ($1.35 per SQ FT) to $33,816.00 ($1.20 per SQ. FT) beginning
July l, 2013 for one year. The following
year and each year
thereafter, the rent will increase by $.05 per
SQ FT added to the previous year. See rates listed
below for Base Rent Schedule. All other terms of the lease will remain unchanged.


 


Base Rent
Schedule:


 


	July 1, 2013 –  June 30, 2014	$33,816 ($1.20/sf) per month
	July 1, 2014 –  June 30, 2015	$35,225 ($1.25/sf) per month
	July 1, 2015 –  June 30, 2016	$36,634 ($1.30/sf) per month
	July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017	$38,043 ($1.35/sf) per month
	July 1, 2017 – April 3, 2018	$39,452 ($1.40/sf) per month


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have
executed this
Amendment on
the date first set
forth above.


 


LESSOR:


 


IRVINE BUSINESS
PROPERTIES


A California general partnership, General Partner


 


 


By:          /s/ Patrick Carrier            


Patrick
Carrier, Chief Financial
Officer


 


July 9, 2013


Date


 


 


LESSEE:


 


PRO-DEX, INC.


A Colorado
Corporation


 


By:          /s/ Harold A. Hurwitz


Hal Hurwitz CEO & CFO


 


July 15, 2013


Date
----

Exhibit 32.2 

MPHASE TECHNOLGIES, INC. 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) 
In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a NewJersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Q for the quarter ended March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,Martin S. Smiley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that tohis 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, I all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company. 

/s/ Martin S. Smiley Martin S. Smiley Chief Financial Officer May 19, 2005
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ROBERTO ANTONIO SANDOVAL, a.k.a. Robert Antonio Sandoval,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50335

D.C. No. 3:16

- cr

- 01694

- JLS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Robert Antonio Sandoval appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 97

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for

receipt of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct

, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As Sandoval

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 50335

did not object to his sentence on procedural grounds before the district court, we

review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103,

1108 & n.3 (9 th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

Sandoval claims the district court procedurally erred by failing to appreciate

its discretion to vary downward on the basis of a policy disagreement with the

United States Sentencing Guidelines, pursuant to Kimbrough v. Unite d States , 552

U.S. 85 (2007). Sandoval also argues that the district court procedurally erred by

not considering various arguments he tailored to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors

. Because the district court recognized its ability to impose a

be low

- Guidelines sentence, yet indicated it “[did] not have, in fact, a policy

disagreement with [the Guidelines],” United States v. Henderson , 649 F.3d 955,

964 (9th Cir. 2011), it did not err. See United States v. Ayala

- Nicanor , 659 F.3d

744, 752

- 53 (9th Cir. 2011) (no procedural error where a sentencing court noted

the advisory nature of the G uidelines and considered a policy

- based challenge

thereto).

T he record reflects that the district court considered Sandoval’s § 3553(a)

arguments and adequate ly explained its decision to reduce his total offense level by

one point and to impose a 97

- month sentence. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d

984, 99 6 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (no procedural error where a sentencing judge

“stated that he reviewed the [sentencing] papers [and] the papers discussed the3 17

- 50335

applicability of the § 3553(a) factors”) ; United States v. Daniels , 541 F.3d 915, 922

(9th Cir. 2008) (no procedural error where the presentence investigation report and

the record as a whole demonstrated that the district court heard and rejected a

defendant’s § 3553(a) arguments).

AFFIRMED.
Exh 10.1 - 01






Exhibit 10.1




July 12, 2013


Ms. Catherine M. Vaczy
140 East 28th Street
#11C
New York, NY  10021
Dear Catherine:
We are pleased to enter into this extension (the “Extension”) of your employment agreement dated as of January 26, 2007 (the “2007 Agreement”), as thereafter amended by amendments on January 9, 2008, August 29, 2008,  reinstated and extended on July 8, 2009, extended on July 7, 2010, extended on January 6, 2012 and extended on  November 12, 2012 (the 2007 Agreement as so amended and extended, the “Original Agreement”) with respect to your service to the Company as its Vice President and General Counsel.  This Extension shall become effective (the “Effective Date”) as of July 8, 2013 and shall modify the Original Agreement with respect to those different and additional terms as set forth below.  
		
	1.
	Your Base Salary shall be $280,000, reviewed annually.




		
	2.
	You shall be eligible for annual cash and equity bonuses as determined by the Compensation Committee in its sole discretion with a cash bonus target of 30% of your Base Salary.  




		
	3.
	The “Term” as extended shall begin as of the Effective Date and continue through December 31, 2014. 




		
	4.
	During the Term, the Company will continue to pay annual membership and dues for a club in New York of your choice and reimburse you for up to $3,500 annually for long-term disability coverage. 




		
	5.
	You shall be granted on the date of this amendment an option (the “Option”) under the 2009 Amended and Restated Equity Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) to purchase 240,000 shares (the “Shares”) of common stock, $.001 par value (the “Common Stock”) which shall vest and become exercisable as to (i) 60,000 Shares immediately; (ii) 60,000 Shares on December 31, 2013; (iii) 60,000 Shares on July 15, 2014;  and  (iv) 60,000 Shares on December 31, 2014.  The per share exercise price of the Option shall equal the closing price of the Common Stock on the date of grant and the Option shall be subject in all respects to all the terms and conditions of the Plan and the Original Agreement.  




		
	6.
	Upon termination or expiration of this Extension, the Company shall pay severance equal to three months of your compensation, including your insurance, contingent on the Company receiving a release as contemplated by the Original Agreement.


Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Original Agreement.  Except as set forth herein the terms of the Original Agreement shall remain unchanged.  
NeoStem, Inc.
By:/s/ Robin L. Smith
Name:Robin L. Smith
Title:CEO
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
/s/ Catherine M. Vaczy
Catherine M. Vaczy
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                       <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998          MAR-31-1999 
<CASH>                                          12,180              127,826
<SECURITIES>                                         0               32,221
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,333                1,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                       367                  266
<INVENTORY>                                          0                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,943              163,417
<PP&E>                                          33,205               36,380
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,207               22,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,332              225,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,540               50,459
<BONDS>                                              0                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                    0
<COMMON>                                           450                  609
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,342              173,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,332              225,026
<SALES>                                        128,908               34,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,140               35,926
<CGS>                                           99,213               23,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  206,625               54,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (6,717)              (2,778)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,315                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (65,083)             (15,730)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (65,083)             (15,730)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                    0
<CHANGES>                                            0                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (65,083)             (15,730)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($1.60)               (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($1.60)               (0.29)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN MARK PADGETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-99-457; CA-02-3287-9-8) Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: January 3, 2005 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Mark Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We note that the district court granted a certificate of appealability as to the issue of the validity of Padgett’s conviction in light of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition , 535 U.S. 234 (2002). Because Padgett fai led to raise this issue in his informal brief, we find that it is now waived on appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). - 2 - PER CURIAM: John Mark Padgett, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Padgett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Padgett’s motion for an expanded certificate of appealability * and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and- 3 - legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Constellation
Energy

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-135991 and
33-59545, 333-45051, 333-46980, 333-89046, 333-129802, 333-81292, 33-56084, and 333-143260,
respectively) of Constellation Energy Group, Inc. of our report dated February 27, 2009 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

GRAPHICPRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLPBaltimore, Maryland
February 27, 2009


Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-135991-01) of Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company of our report dated February 27, 2009 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

GRAPHICPRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLPBaltimore, Maryland
February 27, 2009


---



QuickLinks