alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - June 2008 

Benefit payments June 2008 June 2007 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - a

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ged and disabled 

$838,160,000 

556,800,000 

101,558,000 

156,516,000 

23,281,000 

$814,633,000 

536,708,000 

97,722,000 

157,016,000 

23,187,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month June 2008 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 566,700 ......... 2,500 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 275,100 $1,996 1,100 $2,610 ......... .........

 Age 190,900 1,966 2 500 2 3,100 $1,084 3 $1,496

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,100 1,776 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 50,100 2,262 300 2,422 1,004 1,051 

Spouses and divorced spouses 136,200 737 800 910 517 382 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 129,400 1,206 500 1,599 1,026 839 

Widowed mothers and fathers 800 1,501 4/ 1,134 779 772 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,100 804 100 1,019 5/ 5/ 

Children 10,900 879 4/ 1,132 707 692 

Other survivors 100 555 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

June 

2008 

$5,015,000 

June 

2007 

$5,036,000 

Number 

120,400 

Average 

$42 

Number

600 

Average 

$41 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 36); about 300

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

June 2008 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 2,000 $503 $290 

Sickness 4,600 514 

June 2008 

Benefit payments 

292 

June 2007 

Unemployment

Total 

1,846,000 

$5,240,000 $3,473,000 

1,964,000 

Sickness 3,394,000 1,508,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary 

Recycled

 Paper
EXHIBIT 32

IMMUCELL CORPORATION

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ImmuCell Corporation (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Michael F. Brigham, President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and

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



/s/    MICHAEL F.
BRIGHAMMichael F. BrighamPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer


March 23, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ImmuCell Corporation and will be retained by ImmuCell Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1912** 

DONNA GARDNER, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lewis C. Gardner , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00063

- JFA )

Submitted : October 22, 2013 Decided: October 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Donna Gardner , Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee

.
Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Donna Gardner appeals the district court ’ s order granting the Government’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement with respect to Gardner’s wrongful death action

. We have reviewed the record and find no rever sible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Gardner v. United States , No. 3:13

- cv - 00063

- JFA (D.S.C. July 9, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
1

Pursuant to 5

TH 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. 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 assault
2

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.
Exhibit 32A

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 Bassett Furniture Industries, Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending November 24, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Robert H. Spilman, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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/ Robert H. Spilman, Jr.                                  
|Robert H. Spilman, Jr. President and Chief
Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Bassett
Furniture Industries, Incorporated and will be retained by Bassett Furniture Industries, Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Naked Brand Group Inc.: Exhibit 10.3 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.3

NAKED BRAND GROUP INC. 

AMENDMENT
to 
WARRANT CERTIFICATE
NO.:


THIS WARRANT AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE

ORIGINAL WARRANT CERTIFICATE 


This Amendment is issued in connection with the Share Purchase
Warrant (represented by Warrant Certificate No.: [number]) (the
“Warrant”) originally issued by Naked Brand Group Inc. (formerly Search by
Headlines.com Corp.) (the “Company”) to [name] on August 10, 2012. Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein have the meaning given thereto in the
Warrant.

THIS CERTIFIES THAT the Expiry Date of the Warrant is
amended from August 10, 2014 to August 10, 2017 and accordingly, all references
to August 10, 2014 be changed to August 10, 2017. All other terms and conditions
of the Warrant shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Company has caused this Amendment
to be signed by its duly authorized officer on July _____, 2013. 

	 	NAKED BRAND GROUP INC. 
	 	  	  
	 	  	  
	 	By:      	/s/ Alex
    McAulay
    
	 		Name: Alex McAulay 
	 		Title: Chief Financial Officer
RYAN ALAN WELCH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-1845

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 24, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jan Shackelford, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford and A. Victoria Wiggins, 

Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Wesley Cross Paxson, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, SWANSON, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
@conference{11781,
  author = {Simon Kaplan and Solomon Woods and Timothy Jung and Adriaan Carter},
  title = {Cryogenic Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer from 4 to 20 Micrometers},
  year = {2010},
  month = {2010-08-20},
  publisher = {Proceedings of SPIE, San Diego, CA},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=906098},
  language = {en},
}
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Neuralstem, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, I. Richard Garr, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





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





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





/s/I. Richard GarrChief Executive Officer

Neuralstem, Inc





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

February 25, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00766

- CR

Anthony JOHNSON

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appe llee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR0527 Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

A ppellant’s brief wa s originally due to be filed on February 10, 2014

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a)

. On February 21, 201 4 , Appellant filed a first motion for extension of time to file the
brief until March 12 , 201 4 , for an extension of thirty days

. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant must file the brief by March 12, 2014

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
96.5955
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1195

CURLEE SHERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. MCCROREY,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 04-1258

CURLEE SHERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH R. MCCROREY,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 04-1282

CURLEE SHERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
- 2 -

versus

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. MCCROREY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-04-119-3-2-24BD; CA-04-312-3)

Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curlee Sherman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Curlee Sherman seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaints. The

district court referred these cases to a magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). In each case the magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Sherman that

failure to file timely, specific objections to the recommendation

could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon

the recommendation. Despite this warning, Sherman failed to

specifically object to the magistrate judge’s recommendations.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Sherman has waived appellate

review by failing to file specific objections after receiving

proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeals.

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
Ex. 10.1-Amendmentto2009StockIncentivePlan






AMENDMENT
TO
THE 2009 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, InterDigital, Inc. (the “Employer”) sponsors and maintains the InterDigital, Inc. 2009 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, the Employer has reserved the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 20 of the Plan; and
The Plan is hereby amended as follows:
1.    Effective June 12, 2013, Section 10 of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:
The Administrator may permit or require a Participant to defer such Participant’s receipt of the payment of cash or the delivery of Shares that would otherwise be due to such Participant by virtue of the lapse or waiver of restrictions with respect to Restricted Stock Units.  If any such deferral election is required or permitted, the Administrator shall, in its sole discretion, establish rules and procedures for such payment deferrals.  Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in no event will any deferral of the delivery of Shares or any other payment with respect to any Award be allowed if the Administrator determines, in its sole discretion, that the deferral would result in the imposition of the additional tax under Section 409A(a)(1)(B) of the Code.  No award shall provide for deferral of compensation that does not comply with Section 409A of the Code, unless the Board, at the time of grant, specifically provides that the Award is not intended to comply with Section 409A of the Code.  The Company shall have no liability to a Participant, or any other party, if an Award that is intended to be exempt from, or compliant with, Section 409A of the Code is not so exempt or compliant or for any action taken by the Board.


Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions set forth in the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan. 
This Amendment has been adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company as of June 12, 2013.  
    

DM3\2564387.1
#### In the Matter of Maiea P., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Reshima K., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services, Respondent, et al., Respondent. Wilfredo P., Nonparty Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 318]

*292The appeal, insofar as it involves Family Court’s denial of the mother’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 for return of the child pending completion of neglect proceedings, has been rendered moot by the court’s subsequent fact-finding determination of neglect *(see Matter of Jabarry W.,*24 AD3d 218, 218 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 711 [2006]). The award of custody to the father does not have a sound and substantial basis in the record *(Bunim v Bunim,*298 NY 391, 393 [1949]) and is contrary to the totality of the circumstances presented to the court *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]), including the expressed wishes of the then 12-year-old child; agency records showing that the mother had complied with the agency plan and has a warm and loving relationship with the child; the recommendations of the Law Guardian, agency caseworkers and mental health experts; evidence that the father had on occasion interfered with the mother’s relationship with the child; and evidence that the child’s separation from her siblings was having a harmful effect on her emotional development *(see id.*at 173; *Bliss v Ach,*56 NY2d 995, 998 [1982]; *Matter of Edwin G. v Patricia E.,*209 AD2d 351 [1994]). However,. as the child has lived with the father for over six years, and given little evidence as to the father’s fitness as a parent, we remand for an immediate hearing at which evidence, including psychological evaluations of the parents and the residents of their respective homes, can be adduced for the purpose of determining whether a change in custody is in the child’s best interests *(see e.g. Matter of Edwin G.).*Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Proper Power and Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph E. Abdo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:  (i)  the accompanying Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); and  (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  PROPER POWER AND ENERGY, INC.  /s/:  Joseph E. Abdo JOSEPH E. ABDO, Chief Executive Officer   May 17, 2010
#### North Syracuse Central School District, Appellant, v Ashley McGraw Architects, P.C., et al., Defendants. NEP Glass Co., Ltd., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Marc Donahue et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[978 NYS2d 707]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (James E Murphy, J.), entered October 10, 2012. The order denied the motion of plaintiff for leave to amend the complaint and caption.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on November 14 and 22, 2013,

*1383It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Centra, J.E, Feradotto, Garni, Lindley and Valentino, JJ.
@misc{1210486,
  author = {Shengyen Li and Yan Lu and Kareem Aggour and Peter Coutts and Brennan Harris and Alex Kitt and Afina Lupulescu and Luke Mohr and Mike Vasquez},
  title = {Enabling FAIR Data in Additive Manufacturing to Accelerate Industrialization},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-24 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Advanced Manufacturing Series (NIST AMS), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936454},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AMS.500-1},
  language = {en},
}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6938

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAPLIN CURETON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00134-1; 3:07-cv-00213) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 30, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Japlin Cureton, Appellant Pro Se. Karen S. Marston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Japlin Cureton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable 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 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 that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cureton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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