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

**No. 15**  **- 7283** 

DONNELL CHRISTOPHER LEWIS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v.
FRANK PERRY , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 00818

- TDS

- JEP )

Submitted : October 20 , 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Donnell Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donnell Christopher Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not ap pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDa niel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petit ion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motions to appoint counsel and compel the production of evidence, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense3 with oral ar gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
The State o

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 13, 2015

No. 04-15-00299-CR

Louis Leo CHRISTINA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR4887

Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On May 6, 2015, appellant filed his notice of appeal. On July 10, 2015, the court reporter 

responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal filed a notification of late record, 

stating that the appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the 

reporter’s record.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of 

the date of this order that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been 

made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s 

fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within 

thirty days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points 

raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Sidney Wisdom, Respondent.

Submitted March 11, 2013;

decided September 12, 2013

Motion to require appellant to provide respondent’s counsel with material granted to the extent that appellant is required to provide respondent’s counsel with copies of the DVD recordings of the videotaped statements and the related excerpt from the transcript (minutes of Apr. 19, 1996 at 7, lines 3-8).
COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
SAM GLASSCOCK III STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE
GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: July 14, 2015
Date Decided: July 14, 2015

Peter B. Andrews, Esquire Joseph Christensen, Esquire

Craig J. Springer, Esquire Joseph Christensen P.A.

3801 Kennett Pike 921 N. Orange Street

Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19801

Wilmington, DE 19807

Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esquire Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, Esquire
Brian D. Long, Esquire Bradley D. Sorrels, Esquire

Gina M. Sera, Esquire Ian Liston, Esquire

Jeremy J. Riley, Esquire Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800

2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19801

Wilmington, DE 19803

William M. Lafferty, Esquire

Ryan D. Stottmann, Esquire

Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP
1201 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Inre Riverbed Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Civil Action No. 10484-VCG

Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed the Motion to Compel the Deposition of Sean J. Griffith,

together with Mr. Griffith’s response to that Motion.


Mr. Griffith has filed an objection to a proposed settlement in this matter.
The Plaintiffs seek to depose him concerning his objections. They contend that
Mr. Griffith does not have standing and purport to seek a deposition on that
ground. However, Mr. Griffith’s standing is a purely legal issue based on the date
of acquisition of his stock; no further evidence-gathering on this issue is relevant to
Mr. Griffith’s objection.

Next, Plaintiffs seek to explore the bases for Mr. Griffith’s legal opinions
regarding the settlement. Mr. Griffith’s opinions, however, speak for themselves;
again, there is no relevant discovery identified in the Motion to Compel.

Finally, I note that the objection is to be heard, together with the proposed
settlement, on July 27, 2015. Given this schedule, the inconvenience and expense
of further discovery regarding the objection cannot be justified.

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Compel the Deposition of Sean J.
Griffith is DENIED. To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely,
/s/ Sam Glasscock II

Sam Glasscock III
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000817 17-JUN-2015 08:01 AM
#### In the Matter of Angel N., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 75]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York Comity (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about December 28, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the second degree and menacing in the second degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found good cause for a very brief adjournment of the fact-finding hearing *(see Matter of Tashaba D.,*24 AD3d 148 [2005]). The presentment agency reported that the elderly victim was ill, and there was an indication in the record of inclement weather. Although appellant was in detention, this was the first and only adjournment of the fact-finding proceeding. Under these circumstances, the court properly exercised its discretion in making a finding of good cause without obtaining further information as to the nature of the victim’s illness.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The evidence disproved appellant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00219-CR

____________________

JAMES TAYLOR JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court

Hardin County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 21666

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

James Taylor Jr. has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.2. A request to dismiss the appeal is signed by appellant personally and by 

counsel of record. No opinion has issued in this appeal. The motion is granted, 

and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
2

 ________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

 

Submitted on January 27, 2015

Opinion Delivered January 28, 2015

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
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,
333-24705, and 33-49801, 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 26, 2008 relating to the financial statements, financial
statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

|GRAPHIC                    |  | 
|-------------------------- |  | 
|PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP |  | 

Baltimore,
Maryland
February 26, 2008

Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-135991) of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company of our report
dated February 26, 2008 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

|GRAPHIC                    |  | 
|-------------------------- |  | 
|PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP |  | 

Baltimore,
Maryland
February 26, 2008

---



QuickLinks
@article{1212136,
  author = {Pratik Jagtap and Michael Hoopmann and Ben Neely and Anthony Harvey and Lukas Käll and Yasset Perez-Riverol and Milky Abajorga and Julie Thomas and Susan Weintraub and Magnus Palmblad},
  title = {The Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities Proteome Informatics Research Group Study on Metaproteomics (iPRG-2020)},
  year = {2023},
  number = {34},
  month = {2023-08-07 04:08:00},
  publisher = {The Journal of Biomolecular Techniques},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934930},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.7171/3fc1f5fe.a058bad4},
  language = {en},
}
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ennis E. Ruffin, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 664]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**79 CA 15-01093**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DENNIS T. BROWN, HOLDER OF 25% OF ALL OUTSTANDING SHARES OF LOGISTIC DYNAMICS, INC., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
BRIAN MAOUAD, JAD MAOUAD AND NADY MAOUAD, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

DUKE, HOLZMAN, PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLP, BUFFALO (PATRICIA GILLEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN G. SCHMIDT, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered December 26, 2014. The order, among other things, dismissed the petition.
Now, upon the stipulation of dismissal and discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on January 15 and 25, 2016, and filed in the Erie County Clerk’s Office on February 8, 2016,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: March 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 10.1 - Exhibit G-3 Form of Exemption for Participant Partnership






EXHIBIT G-3
FORM OF EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE
(For Non-U.S. Participants That Are Partnerships For U.S. Federal Income Tax Purposes)
Reference is made to the Credit Agreement, dated as of July 18, 2013 (as amended, supplemented, restated or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”; unless otherwise defined herein, terms defined therein being used herein as therein defined), among M/I HOMES, INC., an Ohio corporation (the “Borrower”), the several banks and other financial institutions or entities from time to time parties thereto as lenders, including the Swingline Lender and the Issuing Lender (collectively, the “Lenders”), PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as administrative agent for the Lenders (the “Administrative Agent”) and the other agents party thereto.  The undersigned is providing this certificate pursuant to Section 2.16(d) of the Credit Agreement.  The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that:
1.    It is the sole record owner of the participation in respect of which it is providing this certificate;
2.    Its direct or indirect partners/members are the sole beneficial owners of the participation in respect of which it is providing this certificate;
3.    With respect to such participation, neither the undersigned nor any of its direct or indirect partners/members that are beneficial owners  of such participation is a “bank” for purposes of Section 881(c)(3)(A) of the Code;
3.    None of its direct or indirect partners/members that are beneficial owners of the participation is a 10-percent shareholder of the Borrower within the meaning of Section 871(h)(3)(B) of the Code; 
4.    None of its direct or indirect partners/members that are beneficial owners of the participation is a controlled foreign corporation related to the Borrower within the meaning of Section 881(c)(3)(C) of the Code; and
5.    The interest payments in question are not effectively connected with the  conduct of a U.S. trade or business by the undersigned nor any of its partners/members that are beneficial owners of the participation.


The undersigned has furnished the participating Lender with IRS Form W-8IMY accompanied by an IRS Form W-8BEN from each of its partners/members claiming the portfolio interest exemption.  By executing this certificate, the undersigned agrees that (1) if the information provided on this certificate changes, the undersigned shall promptly so inform such Lender and (2) the undersigned shall have at all times furnished such Lender with a properly completed and currently effective certificate in either the calendar year in which each payment is to be made to the undersigned, or in either of the two calendar years preceding such payments. 


 [Signature page follows.]









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this certificate to be duly executed and delivered as of the date indicated below.
[NAME OF PARTICIPANT]
By:_______________________________
Name:
Title:
Date:  ____________________
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The undersigned  hereby  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
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-A  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 8th day of January, 2003.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-A
                                   ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.0

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 on Form 10-Q of Fox Chase Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I hereby 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 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
and for the period covered by the Report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Thomas M. PetroThomas M. PetroPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 17, 2010By:

/s/ Roger S. DeaconRoger S. DeaconChief Financial OfficerMay 17, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 634 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 634

  Providing for the consideration of the bill (S. 820) to strengthen 
        programs authorized under the Debbie Smith Act of 2004.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 2019

      Mr. Collins of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. 
 Reschenthaler, Mr. Cline, Mr. Armstrong, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. McClintock, 
   Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Biggs, Mrs. Roby, and Mrs. Wagner) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                                on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for the consideration of the bill (S. 820) to strengthen 
        programs authorized under the Debbie Smith Act of 2004.

    Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (S. 
820) to strengthen programs authorized under the Debbie Smith Act of 
2004. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
consideration of S. 820.
                                 <all>
```
November 19, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NHH

- CANAL STREET APARTME NTS, INC., A TEXAS N ON

- PROFIT

CORPORATION , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00251

- CV V.
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAI SAL DISTRICT AND HAR RIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT A PPRAISAL REVIEW BOAR D , Appellee

________________________________ We order that the court’s former judgment of June 30 , 2015, be vacated, set aside, and annulled. We further order t his court’s memorandum opinion of June 30 , 2015, withdrawn. This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee s , Harris County Appraisal District and Harris County Appraisal District Appraisal Review Board, signed December 23, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment . We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVER SED and RENDER judgment that appellant, NHH

- Canal Street Apartments, Inc., a Texas Non

- Profit Corporation, is entitled to an ad valorem tax exemption

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee, Harris County App raisal District and Harris County Appraisal District Appraisal Review Board.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

 
 



 

	
	

 NUMBER 
 SHARES 
 IC 

INTREXON CORPORATION 
 COMMON STOCK 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA 
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 

CUSIP 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT: 
 SPECIMEN 

is the owner of 
 FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, NO PAR VALUE, OF 
 Intrexon Corporation 
 transferable on the books of
the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 

WITNESS the facsimile signatures of the Corporation’s duly authorized officers. 

Dated: 
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
 SECRETARY 

AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY. 
 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 
 AMERICAN STOCK
TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC 
 (Brooklyn, NY) 

TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
 BY: 
 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 







 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 

 



					
	TEN COM	 	 – 	  	 as tenants in common
	TEN ENT	 	 – 	  	 as tenants by the entireties
	JT TEN	 	 – 	  	 as joint tenants with right of survivorship and  not as tenants in common

 


									
	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 	 –	 	  
	 	Custodian	 	  

		 		 	(Cust)	 		 	(Minor)
		 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
		 	Act	 	  

		 		 	(State)

 
 

  
 Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
  

					
	For value received,	 	  
	 	hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

  

			
	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE	 	
		 	
	    	 	

  
  

			
	  

PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE

	  
  

	  
  

	  
  
	 	Shares
	of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
	  
  
	 	Attorney
	to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.	 	

  

			
	Dated	 	  


  

					
		 		  	  

		 	NOTICE:	  	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE
WHATSOEVER.

  

					
	SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:	 		  	
			
	  
	 		  	
	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED
SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 17Ad-15.