alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, 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.

 July 14, 2015

jam

Order 

Clerk

July 14, 2015

151952 (12)

JOHN RAWLS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 151952

COA: 327121 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Court, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED 

because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing 

fees. Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for an appeal to be 

filed, appellant must resubmit a copy of this order, and shall refile the copy of the 

pleadings which is being returned with this order within 21 days. By doing this, 

appellant becomes responsible for paying the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to comply with 

this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court.

If appellant timely refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the 

Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant’s 

account until the payments equal the total amount of the filing fee stated above. That 

amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this Court 

until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and 

return appellant’s pleadings with this order.
EXHIBIT 10.1






Agreement for Professional Services
 
  FIRST AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR
 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
  by and between
  TRUSSNET USA, INC. (a Delaware corporation)
  and
  TRUSSNET USA, INC. (a Nevada Corporation)
    
  First Amendment to
 Agreement for Professional Services
  This First Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services, effective as of October 1, 2009 ("First Amendment"), amends that certain Agreement for Professional Services ("Agreement") by and between Trussnet USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("TND"), and Trussnet USA, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("TNN"). Section references in this First Amendment correspond to the equivalent Section of the Agreement.
  The Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the original Section 4 and inserting the following Section 4:
  4. Payment
  TNN shall pay TND for the Services it provides to TNN at TND's standard hourly rates and/or based upon a fixed fee for specific Services. Hourly time charges are subject to change by TND upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. Within ten (10) days after the end of each calendar month during the term of this Agreement, or at such other intervals as TNN and TND mutually agree, TND shall submit an invoice to TNN generally describing the Services during the prior month or agreed upon time interval and identifying the amount of compensation due TND for the Services it has provided to TNN. TNN shall pay TND's invoice for the Services performed to date in installments of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) per month, effective October 1, 2009, and the first day of each succeeding month ("Payment Due Date"), until paid in full.
  All amounts now or subsequently due and unpaid to TND for Services shall be converted into shares of Series A Common Stock ("Shares") of TNN's parent company, China Tel Group, Inc. at a conversion price equal to the lesser of: (i) ninety-five ($0.95); or (ii) eighty percent (80%) of the volume weighted average of the closing bid price for the Shares on the Over The Counter Bulletin Board Exchange for the ten (10) day period prior to each Payment Due Date.
  Except as expressly amended by this First Amendment, all other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
  Trussnet USA Inc. (Delaware)
  By: /s/ Christopher B. Young
 Printed Name: Christopher B. Young
 Title: Chief Operating Officer
  Trussnet USA, Inc. (Nevada)
  By: /s/ George Alvarez
 Printed Name: George Alvarez
 Title: Chief Executive Officer
RFCE.VEDlN , ;

Thi -Lsrt of Appeals

Sixth District

M 0 (02015

"exr.-*ana. Tsxas Y&, (Dk'lM- DOO&5-CV

Debra Autrey, Clerk

FILED !N

TheCourt ofAppeate

Sixth District

FEB 0 6 2015

Texarkana, Texas

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk

Julio fejte.Z)Jt.7 $ XAl THE C£>uRt Of APPEALS

VS. roe

T.T>C.J.T Qi.oJ. # TH£ Sl*TW Ttt&TKfiCT

A?P£LLftfjrg> Morton Iro obj ect

to -rue H0U0RA6LE JusrjL£B of-me sixtw qiurt of AfPeaeSf

I .

t& fc^ooJlta^i S&lsuKy WoaixAj2isa_ u\ VW_ -Wl*>\ leuj

I.

,X:
Rajrkx- U Claris KsLGzmi l"C&) ok lOvOo-nH. (Wjtaa_

f^\4£R,

\A\-UGRE.fffR£; F&£ nurses

VW_ £uV£_ousvtfu^ Vru^Vusti.

X«^L*&di*tt feral, .Ic*ff53734

C£RtxfXCAT£ CTC- <£(LUdX£

cjour^ ra^Vum Vte£ boon t^ru^ ifeh CLUtrfc 'bzjpt* KvAuVr^y^

i»
@article{11791,
  author = {Solomon Woods and Snorri Ingvarsson and Shouheng Sun and John Kirtley},
  title = {Analysis of the Noise Spectra from Oxidized Superparamagnetic Nanoparticles},
  year = {2014},
  month = {2014-08-18},
  publisher = {Physical Review B},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=915838},
  language = {en},
}
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40523 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

GUSTAVO ORTEGA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15

- CR

- 1170

- 1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gustavo Ortega has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229
(5th Cir. 2011). Ortega h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* 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 January 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40523 Document: 00513843035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2017No. 16

- 40523

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANT ED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40523 Document: 00513843035 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LINZEY SMITH, 

Petitioner,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73591

D.C. No. 2:04-CR-00096-JLQ

Eastern District of Washington,

Spokane

ORDER*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington 

Argued and Submitted December 5, 2016

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Smith once again requests authorization to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence as an armed career criminal

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Although Smith claims eligibility for

relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), we are not persuaded

that Smith’s motion relies on Johnson. We already decided that “[b]ecause the

FILED

DEC 09 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
record shows that petitioner’s sentence was not enhanced by the residual clause of

the Armed Career Criminal Act, Johnson does not apply.” Order, Smith v. United

States, No. 15-72688 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 16, 2015) (denying application to file

second or successive § 2255 motion). 

Instead, Smith is again attacking the application of the modified categorical

approach to his predicate Washington second-degree burglary convictions under

Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013). To timely attack the

application of the modified categorical approach, Smith must have done so no

more than one year after his conviction as an armed career criminal became final. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). He did not. See Memorandum in Support of Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Smith v.

United States, No. 2:04-CR-00096-JLQ (E.D. Wash. Mar. 26, 2007), ECF No. 71. 

Now, nearly a decade later, Smith may file a second or successive § 2255 motion

by demonstrating that he may benefit from “a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(h)(2). Because Descamps did not announce a new rule of constitutional

law, United States v. Ezell, 778 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 2015), Smith fails to satisfy

the prerequisites for filing a second or successive § 2255 motion. 

2
The motion requesting authorization to file a second or successive

application for habeas corpus is DENIED.

3
AFL 06.30.13 Ex 10.19






Aflac Incorporated 2nd Quarter 2013 Form 10-Q 
EXHIBIT 10.19
	
		
	NOTICE OF GRANT OF AWARD    
AND AWARD AGREEMENT




	                                           AFLAC INCORPORATED
                                           ID:  58-1167100
                                           Worldwide Headquarters
                                           1932 Wynnton Road
                                           Columbus, Georgia  31999










Award Number:        
Plan: LTIP


            
______________________________________________________________________________
Effective <________>, you have been granted a restricted stock award of <____> shares of Aflac Incorporated (the Company) common stock.  The current total value of the Award at the date of issue was <________>.
These award shares are restricted until the earlier of the date shown below, or the cessation of your membership on the Board of Directors for reasons of death, disability or, provided you have completed at least one full year of vesting service following the date of this Notice, retirement (i.e., the cessation of membership on the Board of Directors as of the date of the first annual Shareholders' meeting of the Company on or after the date you attain age 75 and are no longer eligible to stand for reelection as per the Bylaws of the Company).


Shares                            Full Vest
<______>                        <__________>            


Summary of Award Terms:


These shares of restricted stock will be held in book entry form in the custody of the Company until the restrictions thereon have lapsed.  Subject to the restrictions set forth in the Plan and the Restricted Stock Award Agreement relating to this award, you shall possess all incidents of ownership with respect to the award shares, including the right to receive dividends with respect to such shares and to vote such shares.  In accordance with sections 4(a) and 8(e) of the Plan, any dividend paid on the award shares will be issued in Company common stock and held as additional restricted shares in the book entry account subject to the same terms and conditions attributable to the original grant until such time as all restrictions have lapsed on the shares with respect to which the dividends were paid.


By your signature and the Company's signature below, you and the Company agree that this award is granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Company's 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan (as Amended and Restated March 14, 2012) and the Restricted Stock Award Agreement relating to this award, which is attached to and made a part of this document.


    	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 

	by Daniel P. Amos
	  
	Date
	 

	Aflac Incorporated
	  
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	<___________________>
	 
	Date
@article{1209606,
  author = {Irena Bojanova and Carlos Eduardo Cardoso Galhardo},
  title = {Bug, Fault, Error, or Weakness: Demystifying Software Security Vulnerabilities},
  year = {2023},
  number = {25},
  month = {2023-02-01 05:02:00},
  publisher = {IEEE IT Professional},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936191},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2023.3238631},
  language = {en},
}
No. 99-20870 

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-20870

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MASSOOD DANESH PAJOOH,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-3402

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

January 25, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Massood Danesh Pajooh seeks a certificate of appealability

(“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. He argues that trial counsel was ineffective in

failing to advise him properly as to pleading guilty, in failing

to present a proper defense theory, in disallowing him to testify

on his own behalf, and in failing to conduct adequate pretrial

investigation. He also asserts that he was denied his 

constitutional right to testify and that the Government engaged

in misconduct when it used the perjured testimony of Michael Kent
No. 99-20870 

-2-

Stephens.

To obtain a COA, Pajooh must make a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. See § 2253(c)(2). He has

not made such a showing with regard to any of his claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel. He has, however, made the

requisite showing with regard to his claim that his

constitutional rights were violated when his counsel refused to

permit him to testify. Accordingly, we GRANT him a COA on this

issue, VACATE the district court’s judgment, and REMAND with

instructions that Pajooh is to file a supplement to his § 2255

motion setting forth in greater detail the circumstances

surrounding his failure to testify. See United States v.

Martinez, 181 F.3d 627, 628-29 (5th Cir. 1999). 

If, once this is done, the record does not conclusively show

that Pajooh is entitled to no relief, the district court is

directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether

Pajooh was denied his right to testify. See United States v.

Hughes, 635 F.2d 449, 451 (5th Cir. 1981); § 2255. Pajooh’s

request for COA on his other issues is DENIED. His motion for an

expedited appeal is DENIED as moot.

COA GRANTED in part, DENIED in part; VACATED AND REMANDED.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2290

_____________________________

JEFFREY LYNN MCDONALD,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.

September 12, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Munn v. 

Fla. Parole Comm’n, 807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

WOLF, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jeffrey Lynn McDonald, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd Dobmeier, Appellant.

Submitted March 4, 2013;

decided March 21, 2013

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
July 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CATHY BROCKHAUS PARADOSKI, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00511-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Gaymon, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 57]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered June 10, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of life without parole, 25 years, 25 years and 15 years, concurrent with a term of 2Vs to 7 years for violation of probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder under the theory that he personally committed intentional murder in the course of a robbery *(see*Penal Law § 125.27 [1] [a] [vii]). The court properly declined to submit second-degree murder on the theory that defendant did not personally kill the deceased but was only accessorially liable for his death. There was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant participated in the crime, but that another participant was the killer. Except by way of unfounded speculation, the jury had no basis upon which to selectively credit parts of the accomplice witness’s integrated testimony and discredit other parts *(see People v Negron,*91 NY2d 788, 792-793 [1998]).

Defendant’s arguments concerning corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the evidence fully satisfied the accomplice corroboration requirement *(see*GPL 60.22 [1]; *People v Breland,*83 NY2d 286, 292-294 [1994]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claim. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Carol Stephan, certify that: 

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB  of Fearless International, Inc. ; 

2.       Based on my knowledge, this 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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of thesmall business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.       The small business issuer’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 thesmall business issuer and 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 small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

          b.       Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

          c.       Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small businessissuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.       The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s ability torecord, 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Jackson, Appellant.

Submitted July 1, 2013;

decided August 22, 2013

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14914]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

National Science Board; Committee on Programs and Plans; Sunshine 
Act Meetings; Notice

    The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy and Budget, 
pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR Part 614), the National Science 
Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in 
the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the 
scheduling of meetings for the transaction of National Science Board 
business and other matters specified, as follows:

DATE AND TIME: Friday, June 26, 2009 at 2 p.m.

SUBJECT MATTER: Discussion of future NSF budgets.

STATUS: Closed.
    This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the 
National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Please refer to the National Science Board 
Web site (http://www.nsf.gov/nsb) for information or schedule updates, 
or contact: Jennie Moehlmann, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-7000.

Ann Ferrante,
Writer-Editor.
[FR Doc. E9-14914 Filed 6-19-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Quentin T. Kelly certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of WorldWater Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operation of WorldWater Corp.

By: /s/ Quentin T. Kelly
    -----------------------------------------------------
Name: Quentin T. Kelly
Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

Dated:  June 2, 2003


                                       57