alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEMORANDUM


To:         [Name]

From:       Len Stephens

Date:       November 20, 2001

Re:         Supplemental Options



If you do not tender any of your Eligible Options at all, we will grant you a
Supplemental Option under the 2001 Plan to purchase shares of our common stock,
but only if you continue to be an employee of Leap or one of its subsidiaries
through the grant date of the Supplemental Option. We will grant your
Supplemental Options, if any, shortly after the Offer expires. We expect to
grant Supplemental Options on DECEMBER 19, 2001. Each Supplemental Option will
have an exercise price per share equal to the last reported sale price of our
common stock on the Nasdaq National Market on the grant date of the Supplemental
Option. Supplemental Options will vest and become exercisable with respect to
25% of the shares of common stock covered by the Supplemental Option on each
yearly anniversary of the grant date of the Supplemental Option.

YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL OPTION WILL BE FOR ____________ SHARES.

Please note that if you wish to tender any of your Eligible Options, you must
return your Election Form to Stock Administration by the expiration of the
Offer. The Offer expires on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at 9:00 p.m., Pacific
Time, unless it is extended by us.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2066

In re: ANTHONY MCQUEEN,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(Nos. 1:04-cr-00257-CMH-1; 1:09-cv-00242-CMH)

Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony McQueen, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony McQueen petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on 

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 

(West Supp. 2013) proceeding. He seeks an order from this court 

directing the district court to act. After reviewing the 

district court’s docket, we confirmed that the district court 

ruled on McQueen’s motion on November 1, 2013. Accordingly, we 

deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

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

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

June 11, 2021

p0608 

# Order

Clerk June 11, 2021

163020

LYNETTE HATHON, AMY JO DENKINS,

and all others similarly situated in the

Counties of Keweenaw, Luce, Iosco, Mecosta,

Clinton, Shiawassee, Livingston, and Branch,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 163020

COA: 356850

Court of Claims: 19

- 000023

- MZ

STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court before consideration by the

Court of Appeals.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7436

ERIC PAYNE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LORETTA KELLY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-195-7)

Submitted: January 16, 2002 Decided: February 4, 2002

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Payne appeals the district court’s order denying relief

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

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Payne v. Kelly, No. CA-01-195-7 (W.D. Va.

July 24, 2001). 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
I.t\ tv\^ r baws^Tw omjuRt OY Qppcfli $

CftUS^^Q, 1H. \*A- O^^O^ - C_ft I 14th COURT OF App-

^ Jp;l. (ftjecal.iVom He

ToTtte vtoa^R^^TTuoG^ " *

F£\ fc T0'C^ «*W^. D*wJ3 VTM^cs ^ HbJ

MerV^ rwWl aj^sv**kV vo tkhp 3^,5, £U} ^^7'?% +"hft'

Pe\o,Wg -Vo YWs<L tftau- numbers fij. , . rmt+efs

pro St 6r,xi= of- q+ i<q$+ qo <w £_ ,/; 7?~?e r* *.'J<.

6^-30-)5

FILED iiv
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Summit Exploration Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Alan Hart, Chief Executive 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 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated this 14th day of July, 2006.

BY:
/s/ ALAN HART                        Alan  Hart, Principal Executive Officer **
#### Express Shipping, Ltd., et al., Appellants, v Mark Gold, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 783]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Gigante, J.), dated May 11, 2005, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the noncompetition clause which the plaintiffs sought to enforce was not reasonably limited both temporally and geographically and, in opposition, the plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of fact *(see Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. v Foti,*270 AD2d 250, 251 [2000]; *cf. Michael G. Kessler & Assoc., Ltd. v White,*28 AD3d 724 [2006]; *Stiepleman Coverage Corp. v Raifman,*258 AD2d 515, 516 [1999]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Crane, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.
@article{108901,
  author = {Thomas Chastek and Kathryn Beers and Eric Amis},
  title = {Miniaturized Dynamic Light Scattering Instrumentation for Use in Microfluidic Applications},
  year = {2007},
  number = {78},
  month = {2007-01-01},
  publisher = {Review of Science Instruments},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=852696},
  language = {en},
}
@article{1206921,
  author = {Emanuel Knill and Scott Glancy and Daniel Cole and Shawn Geller},
  title = {Improving quantum state detection with adaptive sequential observations},
  year = {2022},
  number = {7},
  month = {2022-05-13 04:05:00},
  publisher = {Quantum Science and Technology},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=933559},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ac6972},
  language = {en},
}
In      connection with the Quarterly Report of Transdel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) pursuant to      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley      Act of 2002, Juliet Singh, Ph.D., the Chief Executive Officer of Transdel      Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and John T. Lomoro, the Chief Financial Officer of      Transdel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., each certifies that:

| (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                August 11, 2008 |                                         |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                  |                                         |
|                                  | /s/                Juliet Singh              |
|                                  | Juliet                Singh, Ph.D.,          |
|                                  | Chief                Executive Officer       |
|                                  | (Principal                Executive Officer) |
|                                  |                                         |
|                                  | /s/                John T. Lomoro            |
|                                  | John                T. Lomoro,               |
|                                  | Chief                Financial Officer       |
|                                  | (Principal                Financial Officer) |

----
|   Name                of Subsidiary                                                                       |  Jurisdictionof                Incorporation |   | YearAcquiredof                Formed |   | Percentageof                VotingSecurities                Owned |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| ASI                Data Services Inc                                                                                | Maine                                             |   | 1993                                 |   |                                                              | 100    | % |
| Northeast Bank              (and its 100% owned subsidiary, Northeast Bank Insurance Group,              Inc.) | Maine                                             |   | 1987                                 |   |                                                              | 100    |  % |
* 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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50306 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. OLEGARIO SAAVEDRA-ROJAS, also known as Ricardo Cordova-Valdez Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-1968-ALL
Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Crimi nal Case, Olegario Saavedra-Rojas raises arguments that areforeclosed by Almendarez-Torresv. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and thejudgment ofthe district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 415 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 25
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 415

                          [Report No. 116-102]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to authorize the 
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain aliens, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 3, 2019

   Ms. Shalala, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to authorize the 
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain aliens, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6) to authorize the 
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain aliens, and 
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-16, modified by the amendment 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 
bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two 
hours 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 with or without instructions.
                                                  House Calendar No. 25

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 415

                          [Report No. 116-102]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to authorize the 
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain aliens, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 3, 2019

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### Georgiana Grigore, Appellant, v Nicholas Kourounis et al., Respondents.

[975 NYS2d 913]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated June 13, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendants Edgar E. Ozuna and Royal Monger Transportation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident and, in effect, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the nonmoving defendants, Nicholas Kourounis, Juan Sebastian Rodriguez, and Andres Garces.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated in its entirety.

*580The moving defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). They submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiffs spine did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua, 59*AD3d 614 [2009]), and that the alleged injuries to the plaintiffs left wrist, right knee, and right ankle were not caused by the subject accident *(see Jilani v*Palmer, 83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

However, the plaintiff, in opposition, raised triable issues of fact as to whether the alleged injuries to her left wrist, right knee, and right ankle were caused by the accident, and whether the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine constituted serious injuries under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 215-218 [2011]; *Mazo v Wolofsky,*9 AD3d 452 [2004]; *see also Ramkumar v Grand Style Transp. Enters. Inc.,*22 NY3d 905 [2013]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the moving defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and should not have, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment to the nonmoving defendants. Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part III - Principles of Service and Compensation 

Chapter 2: Employment Relation

1

Employment Relation Defined

An employee generally has an employment relation beginning with the effective hire date and 

ending with the effective termination date. Service months may be credited only for months in 

which an employment relation is maintained. An employment relation is maintained during periods 

in which active service is not performed because of: 

• furlough;

• authorized leave of absence; or

• continuous disability. 

Employment Relation Ends 

An employment relation ends when an employee:

• dies;

• retires or receives a company pension; 

• is discharged; 

• resigns; or 

• relinquishes employment rights. 

Common Error in Reporting Service Months 

It is a common employer error to report service months after the employment relation has ended 

when a payment is made in a later month for earnings due. Payments earned in a prior period may 

be credited when paid, but service months are always credited when the service was performed. 

Service months can only be credited for months in which an employment relationship exists. An 

employment relation is an essential factor in crediting service months but is not a requirement in 

crediting compensation. 

Example of Correctly Reporting Service Months 

An employee retires in November. Earnings payments due are made in December and again in the 

following February. The payments made after November may be credited as compensation to 

November (or earlier months, if earned in earlier months) or to the months payments were actually 

made, but no service months are creditable after November. The employee is not entitled to service 

credit for December or February because the employment relation ended in November.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for the annual period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David B. Pierce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                         |  |                      |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                         |  | PORTER BANCORP, INC.
|                         |  |                     
|Dated: November 12, 2010 |  | By:                  |  | /s/ David B. Pierce    
|                         |  |                      |  | David B. Pierce        
|                         |  |                      |  | Chief Financial Officer