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



Exhibit 14.1
 
 IVANHOE ENERGY INC.
CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS
 Introduction
       SPECIFICS OF CODE
 I. Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations




---



##### 



2  II. Conflicts of Interest
  
    
    an individuals personal interests interfere, or appear to interfere, in any way, with the
interests of the Company;
    
    an individual takes action for his or her direct or indirect benefit or the direct or
indirect benefit of a third party that is inconsistent with the interests of the Company; or
    
    an individual, or a member of his or her family, receives improper personal benefits as a
result of his or her position in the Company.
   III. Corporate Opportunities




---



##### 



3  IV. Confidentiality
    V. Protection and Proper Use of Company Assets
    VI. Insider Trading




---



##### 



4 VII. Fair Dealing
  VIII. Compliance with Environmental Laws
 .
 IX. Equal Opportunity
  X. Safety and Health
  XI. Financial and Business Disclosure and Accuracy of Company Records and Reporting




---



##### 



5 
    
    all accounting records, and the reports produced from such records, must be in
accordance with all applicable laws;
    
    all accounting records must fairly and accurately reflect the transactions or
occurrences to which they relate;
    
    all accounting records must fairly and accurately reflect in reasonable detail the
Companys assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses;
    
    no accounting records should contain any false or intentionally misleading entries;
    
    no transactions should be intentionally misclassified as to accounts, departments or
accounting periods;
    
    all transactions must be supported by accurate documentation in reasonable detail and
recorded in the proper account and in the proper accounting period;
    
    no information should be concealed from the internal auditors or the independent
auditors; and
    
    compliance with the Companys system of internal controls is required.
   XII. Use of E-Mail and Internet Services




---



##### 



6  XIII. Gifts and Entertainment
    XIV. Payments to Domestic and Foreign Officials
 Corruption of Foreign Public Officials
Act Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997




---



##### 



7   XV. Reporting of any Illegal or Unethical behavior
  XVI. Amendment, Modification and Waivers of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
  XVII. Compliance Procedures




---



##### 



8
Motion Granted and Order filed June 23, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00417-CV

NO. 14-14-00458-CV

IN RE ROBERT PRIMO, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-17078

ORDER

On May 30, 2014, relator Robert Primo filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In his 

petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Dan Hinde, presiding 

judge of the 269th District Court of Harris County, to vacate an order reinstating a 

prior order striking relator’s request for a jury trial. On June 11, 2014, relator filed 
2

a separate petition for writ of mandamus, asking this court to compel Judge Hinde 

to vacate his original order striking relator’s request for a jury trial.

On June 13, 2014, real parties in interest Porter Hedges LLP, John 

Alexander Irvine, and Richard Blake Runions filed an unopposed motion to 

consolidate the related mandamus proceedings. We GRANT the real parties’ 

motion, and order the original proceedings pending under our case numbers 14-14-

00417-CV and 14-14-00458-CV CONSOLIDATED. 

In addition, the court requests real parties in interest Porter Hedges LLP, 

John Alexander Irvine, and Richard Blake Runions to file a response to relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus in No. 14-14-00458-CV on or before July 7, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown.
Supreme Court ofthe United States

Office ofthe Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

July 17, 2015

Scott S. Harris

Clerk ofthe Court

(202)479-3011

FILED IN

1ST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON. TEXAS

JUL 2 3 2015

iPHfiR A PRII

Clerk

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

301 Fannin Street

Houston, TX 77002-2066 CHRISTQ

CLERK

PRINE

Re: Eugenia Woodard

v. Fortress Insurance Company, et al.

No. 15-5246

(Your No. 01-14-00792-CV)

Dear Clerk:

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on July

13, 2015 and placed on the docket July 17, 2015 as No. 15-5246.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

by

Andrew Downs

Case Analyst
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, Robert A. Rich, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of American Uranium
      Corporation for the quarter ended November 30, 2007 (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
      operations of American Uranium Corporation.                                                                      

Dated: January 21, 2008

|/s/ Robert A. Rich                              | 
|----------------------------------------------- | 
|Robert A. Rich,                                 | 
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director | 
|(Principal Executive Officer)                   | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to American Uranium
Corporation and will be retained by American Uranium Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-24-00400-CV

SONIA TREVINO

v.

RAMON SEGOVIA

On Appeal from the

275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-2855-24-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 21, 2024
Case 2:11-cr-00310-JLL Document 18 Filed 08/31/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 127
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexis Vasquez, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 124]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered August 12, 2003, convicting him of murder in the first degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). The evidence adduced at trial revealed, inter alia, that the defendant was present at a meeting when plans to carry out a shooting were made, that the defendant was provided with a gun at that meeting which was shown by forensic analysis to have been used in the shooting, and that the defendant was seen fleeing in a car from the scene of the crime.

*637Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the challenged photographic identification made by an accomplice was merely confirmatory *(see People v Rodriguez,*79 NY2d 445, 452 [1992]; *People v DeJesus,*19 AD3d 705 [2005]). Thus, the notice requirements of CPL 710.30 were inapplicable.

Further, the defendant opened the door to testimony regarding photographic identifications by two police detectives, based on the remarks in his opening statement which undermined the integrity of the identification testimony of the detectives. Admission of earlier photographic identifications made by the detectives was warranted to correct the misimpression created that lineup identifications conducted 3x/2 months after the incident were the only identifications these two detectives made *(see People v Massie,*2 NY3d 179 [2004]; *People v Jackson,*240 AD2d 680 [1997]).

The defendant’s contention relating to a surprise prosecution witness is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object after the trial court granted a brief recess to enable him to prepare for cross-examination of that witness and after the cross-examination was conducted.

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Florio, J.E, Krausman, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 17 Filed 04/11/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 85
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1266

LARRY C. WELDON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (CA-95-59-2-BO-2)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 18, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry C. Weldon, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Raleigh Ellisen, Janet A.

Bradley, Theodore M. Doolittle, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order awarding summary

judgment to the United States in this quiet title action. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Weldon v. United States, No. CA-95-59-2-BO-2 (E.D.N.C. Jan.

24, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glen A. Miller, Vice President and Chief Financial 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:



| | (2) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 15, 2008



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Glen A. Miller                        
|Glen A. Miller                            
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6479

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALFRED EMANUEL MEAIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00307-NCT; 1:04-cv-00267-NCT)

Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred Emanuel Meais, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Emanuel Meais seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

April 4, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on March 15, 2006.

Because Meais failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE) In connection with the Annual Report of Del Taco Income Properties IV (the
Partnership) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned officers of the partnership, 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 and results of operations of the
partnership. Date:  March 30, 2004
    /s/ Kevin K. MoriartyKevin K. MoriartyDirector, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer Date:  March 30, 2004
    /s/ Robert J. TerranoRobert J. TerranoExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1240
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 1241
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 1242
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 1243
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 1244
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 1245
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 1246
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 1247
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 1248
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 1249
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 62 Filed 02/04/11 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 1250
EXHIBIT 10.9

                                     [LOGO]

January 31, 2005

To: JRT Associates

From: Paul S. Lipschutz


      RE: Consulting Agreement

This letter is an addendum to our agreement dated October 10, 2004.

Collectible  Concepts  Group,  Inc.  hereby  agrees that because of the services
provided by Mr.  Theismann in attaining  the NFL license for CCGI,  we will also
pay 5% (five percent) of sales (as defined by the previous  agreement and on the
terms of the previous agreement) for NBA sales made by CCGI.

Additionally,  we will issue options for an additional 3 million  shares at .003
(3 mills) good for 3 years from the date of this addendum.

/s/ Paul S. Lipschutz
---------------------
President
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-ESK Document 88 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 3325
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-ESK Document 88 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 3326
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-ESK Document 88 Filed 10/31/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 3327
* 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. 02-10772

Summary Calendar

 

In re: HAROLD O’CONNOR,

Debtor,

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

GREG GUTMAN and

PRESTON NATIONAL BANK,

Appellants,

versus

HAROLD O’CONNOR,

Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC Nos. 3:01-CV-2606-D; 3:01-CV-2607-D____

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

February 13, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this bankruptcy litigation matter, the bankruptcy court

imposed sanctions pursuant to Rule 9011, Fed. Bankr. R.P., the

sanctions provision substantially similar to Rule 11, Fed. R.

Civ. P. The district court, acting in its appellate capacity,
No. 02-10772

-2-

affirmed the bankruptcy court. In their appeal, appellants argue

i.) the bankruptcy court committed error in assessing sanctions

against appellants for allegedly violating the automatic stay

imposed by the court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362; ii.) the

bankruptcy court committed error by failing to sanction

appellee’s counsel for violation Rule 9011, Fed. Bankr. R.P.;

iii.) the bankruptcy court committed error by failing to sanction

appellee’s counsel for presenting perjured testimony in support

of debtor-appellee’s motion for contempt.

It is well-settled that “[w]e review the bankruptcy court’s

findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and decide

issues of law de novo.” In re First City Bancorporation of Texas

Inc., 282 F.3d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Henderson v.

Belknap (In re Henderson), 18 F.3d 1305, 1307 (5th Cir. 1994),

cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1014 (1994)). As the imposition of

sanctions is discretionary, we review the exercise of this power

for an abuse of discretion. See First City Bancorporation, 282

F.3d at 867; Matter of Terrebonne Fuel and Lube, Inc., 108 F.3d

609, 613 (5th Cir.1997). "A court abuses its discretion when its

ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly

erroneous assessment of the evidence." Chaves v. M/V Medina

Star, 47 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1995). Bankruptcy courts, in

general, should exercise restraint when considering using its

inherent power to impose sanctions. See id.
No. 02-10772

-3-

Our review of the record supports the conclusion of the

bankruptcy court that appellant ignored the automatic stay

imposed by the bankruptcy court, that this conduct merited

sanction, and that the sanction imposed does not constitute an

abuse of discretion. Thus, we find no merit to the arguments

advanced by appellant in this appeal.

The judgment of the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.
HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES ANNUAL AVERAGES

28. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

(Numbers in thousands)

Reason

White Black or African

American Asian Hispanic or Latinoethnicity

2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

 Total unemployed .................................................................. 5,143 6,509 1,445 1,788 229 285 1,220 1,678

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs .......... 2,667 3,576 637 904 95 139 635 936

 On temporary layoff ................................................................ 805 969 122 141 16 19 184 257

 Not on temporary layoff .......................................................... 1,861 2,607 515 763 79 120 451 679

 Permanent job losers ............................................................ 1,328 1,947 337 538 56 96 276 440

 Persons who completed temporary jobs .............................. 533 660 178 225 23 25 175 240

Job leavers ............................................................................... 595 677 139 147 25 33 111 144

Reentrants ................................................................................ 1,474 1,737 500 559 79 80 346 433

New entrants ............................................................................ 407 519 169 177 29 33 127 164

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

 Total unemployed .................................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs ......... 51.8 54.9 44.1 50.6 41.6 48.9 52.1 55.8

 On temporary layoff ............................................................... 15.7 14.9 8.4 7.9 7.1 6.6 15.1 15.3

 Not on temporary layoff ......................................................... 36.2 40.1 35.6 42.7 34.6 42.3 37.0 40.5

 Job leavers .............................................................................. 11.6 10.4 9.6 8.2 10.9 11.7 9.1 8.6

 Reentrants ............................................................................... 28.7 26.7 34.6 31.2 34.7 27.9 28.4 25.8

 New entrants ........................................................................... 7.9 8.0 11.7 9.9 12.7 11.4 10.4 9.8

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE

 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE

 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs ......... 2.1 2.8 3.6 5.1 1.3 1.9 2.9 4.3

 Job leavers .............................................................................. .5 .5 .8 .8 .4 .5 .5 .7

 Reentrants ............................................................................... 1.2 1.4 2.9 3.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 2.0

 New entrants ........................................................................... .3 .4 1.0 1.0 .4 .5 .6 .7

 NOTE: Estimates for the above race groups (white, black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races. 

Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January

data.

241