alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight Julius FULTON, a/k/a DJ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7612.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 19, 2012.

Dwight Julius Fulton, Appellant Pro Se. Mushtaq Zakir Gunja, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dwight Julius Fulton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion without prejudice. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fulton 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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, the undersigned officer of Subjex Corporation does
      hereby certify that:





(a)
      the
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Subjex Corporation for the year ended December
      31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of Subjex
      Corporation








Date:
                September 12, 2007
            By:
            /s/  Andrew
                D. HyderAndrew
                D. HyderPresident
                & Chief Executive Officer
Case 3:11-cr-00485-GEB   Document 3   Filed 03/01/11   Page 1 of 1 PageID: 4
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
American Uranium Corporation for the period ended August 31, 2009, 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, to his knowledge:

|1. | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended; and                                    
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                     
|2. | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of American Uranium Corporation.

October 14, 2009

/s/ Robert A. RichRobert
A. Rich President, CEO and CFO Principal Executive Officer, Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

A signed original 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.

---
exhibit10_20.htm






Exhibit 10.20  





  











  








PERFORMANCE AWARD AND CASH BONUS PLAN OF TRANSOCEAN LTD.


(As Established January 1, 2009)


 


 


First Amendment


 


Transocean Ltd. (the “Company”), having reserved the right under Section 4.1 of the Performance Award and Cash Bonus Plan of Transocean Ltd. (the “AIP”) to amend the AIP, does hereby amend the AIP, effective as of January 1, 2013, as follows:


 


Article IV of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following Section 4.8 thereto and renumbering the existing Section 4.8 as 4.9:


 


 


“4.8           Clawback Policy.  Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Plan, any award under this Plan which is subject to recovery under any law, government regulation, stock exchange listing requirement or any policy adopted by the Company will be subject to forfeiture and/or recoupment as may be required thereunder.”


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused these presents to be executed by the signature affixed hereto in a number of copies, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument, this 28th day of February 2013, but effective as of the date set forth above.


   


          


      TRANSOCEAN LTD.

















                                           By:           /s/ Keelan L. Adamson                                                      







                                           Name:      Keelan L. Adamson                                                      







                                                             Title:         Vice President, Human Resources
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 573 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 573

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain 
         sightseeing flights from taxes on air transportation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

 Mr. Hayworth introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain 
         sightseeing flights from taxes on air transportation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS EXEMPT FROM TAXES ON AIR 
              TRANSPORTATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 4281 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to small aircraft on nonestablished lines) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For purposes of this 
section, an aircraft shall not be considered as operated on an 
established line if such aircraft is operated on a flight the sole 
purpose of which is sightseeing.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to transportation beginning on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, but shall not apply to any amount paid before 
such date.
                                 <all>
```
AMENDMENT 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of February
28, 2013, by and between ADVANCED PHOTONIX, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and
ROBIN RISSER (“Employee”).


 


Recitals


 


A.Company and Employee are parties
to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of August 19, 2011 (the “Employment Agreement”).


 


B.Company has requested that
Employee amend the Employment Agreement and Employee has consented to the Amendment in accordance with the terms and subject to
the conditions set forth herein.


 


Agreement


 


Now,
Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy
of which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.                  
Definitions.
Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the Employment Agreement.


 


2.                  
Amendments to Employment Agreement. Section
3.1 of the Employment Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 


 


“3.1.Base Salary.
In consideration of the services to be performed by Employee during the Employment Period, the Company agrees to pay Employee a
base salary (“Base Salary”) at the rate of $260,000 per year payable in accordance with the Company’s
customary payroll practices as in effect from time to time. Base Salary will be reviewed no less frequently than annually, and
may be increased (but not decreased) in the sole discretion of the independent directors of the Board or the Compensation Committee
of the Board (the “Committee”). Notwithstanding the preceding, from the period commencing March 1, 2013 and
ending July 31, 2013, the Base Salary payable pursuant to this Section 3.1 shall be reduced by twenty percent (20%).”


 


3.                  
Limitation of Amendment.
Except as expressly provided herein, the terms, covenants and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unamended and
shall continue to be and shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their respective terms. The terms set forth herein
shall be limited precisely as provided for herein to the provisions expressly referred to herein and shall not be deemed an amendment
or modification of or consent to any other term or provision of the Employment Agreement, or otherwise prejudice any right or remedy
which either party may now have or may have in the future under or in connection with the Employment Agreement.


 


4.                  
Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and all of such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute
one and the same instrument.


 


In
Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first
written above.


 


 








	COMPANY	 	 	EMPLOYEE
	 	 	 	 
	ADVANCED PHOTONIX, INC.	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:
    /s/ Richard Kurtz	 	 	/s/
    Robin Risser
	Name: Richard Kurtz	 	 	Robin Risser
	Title: Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Minutes of Proceeding

OFFICE: Trenton 

Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman Date:8/20/12

Court Reporter/ESR: Digitally

TITLE OF CASE: CIVIL 11-3788 MAS/LHG

Orexo AB

vs.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al

APPEARANCES:

Elina Slavin, John E. Flaherty, Errol B. Taylor, Suni Sreetada and

Ana Brook, Esqs for Plaintiff

Arnold B. Calmann, Douglass C. Hochstetler and Beth Jacob, Esqs for

Defendant

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:.

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE HELD. Re: certain discovery clarification

Telephone Conference set for 10/12/12 at 9:30 a.m.

Order to be submitted. 

TIME COMMENCED: 11:00 a.m.

TIME ADJOURNED: 11:20 a.m. 

TOTAL TIME: 20 minutes 

 Ivannya Jimenez 

Courtroom Deputy

Case 3:11-cv-03788-MAS-LHG Document 85 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 806
Case 3:11-cv-03788-MAS-LHG Document 85 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 807
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DANIEL CASTRO,

Petitioner

v.

LISA MARIE ROSADO,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 261 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of May, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1540

ELIZABETH CASTRO-DE GARCIA; A.E.G.C.; MAURO GARCIA-TORRES,

 Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: March 14, 2023 Decided: April 25, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Andrew Barreto, GOREN & BARRETO, Silver Spring, Maryland, for 

Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. 

Flynn, Assistant Director, Jessica R. Lesnau, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil 

Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1540 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Castro-De Garcia, Mauro Garcia-Torres, and their minor child, natives 

and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of their

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence 

does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see INS v. 

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review 

for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Castro-De Garcia (B.I.A. Apr. 18, 2022). We 

deny the emergency motion for stay pending appeal and 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1540 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
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**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Inhibiton Therapeutics, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended January 31, 2006 Amendment No. 2,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”), I, Henry Fong, President & Chief Executive Officer, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the
              Report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/
                Henry FongHenry
                FongPrincipal
                Executive Officerand
              Principal
                Financial OfficerJune
                23, 2006




A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Inhibiton Therapeutics, Inc. and subsidiaries and will be retained
      by Inhibiton Therapeutics, Inc. and subsidiaries and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:11-cv-03255-KSH-PS Document 1-2 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 11
Case 2:11-cv-03255-KSH-PS Document 1-2 Filed 06/06/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 12
#### FLEISCHMAN et al. v. HARWOOD.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 7, 1950.

Raphael & Conlin, New York City, for defendant (Sidney !0. Raphael, New York City, of counsel), for motion.

Solomon B. Terkeltaub, New York Citye for plaintiffs, in opposition.

*140KENNEDY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, residents of the State of New Jersey, are suing defendant Harwood, a New York resident physician, for damages in the sum of $115,000 1 allegedly resulting from defendant’s malpractice in performing a tonsilectomy upon the plaintiff wife. In his answer defendant ■ sets up as a separate and complete defense a general release signed by plaintiff wife.

Defendant now moves for an order praying for a separate trial on the issue of the release and also for a stay of the action until the trial of that issue.

Defendant urges that it has brought itself within rule 42(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. in that a 'separate trial will be in “furtherance of convenience” and will “avoid prejudice”. He argues that the release is a complete bar to the wife’s claim2 and further that it will be “utterly impossible in the face of common experience to- gain fair consideration by a jury on the quesion of a general release when it is merged with the over-all consideration of the question of the plaintiff’s recovery for the serious injuries”.

On the latter point I cannot bring myself to believe that a jury cannot fairly determine that issue along with the other issues in the case.

 It will be noted that plaintiff husband is not a party, to the release agreement. Assuming that the release would be a complete bar to the wife’s claim, it would in no way estop plaintiff husband from proceeding with his claim. To determine that claim it will be necessary for the court tO' hear proof on the question whether defendant was or was not guilty of malpractice. In other words, the proof will be the same whether plaintiff wife is or is not a party.Therefore, nothing will be accomplished, except perhaps undue delay, if this motion is granted.

The motion is denied.

1

. Plaintiff husband sues for $15,000 for loss of services and for medical expenses.

2

. Defendant seems to say that if it be held that the release bars the wife’s claim, the probability of any recovery by the husband will 'be negligible and if the claim doesn’t fall of its own weight; it could be settled for a nominal amount.
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 98-40375 Conference Calendar

__________________ JOE HENRY MACK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY MOHR, Building Major, DAVID DOUGHTY; HARRIS, Officer; NEWCOST, Officer, BENNETT, Officer, MACK, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-95-CV-393

- - - - - - - - - - February 9, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. * PER CURIAM: ** Joe Henry Mack, Texas prisoner # 671331, appeals the district court's dismissal of his civil rights suit as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He argues that the dismissal of his suit under § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i) was premature, that he suffered from denial of library access in violation of the EighthNo. 98-40375 -2- Amendment, and that the Defendants were deliberately indifference to his serious medical needs in delivering medical care and in making job assignments. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mack's suit as frivolous. Mack’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). It is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350

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



In connection with the filing by ADE Corporation (the Company) of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2004
(the Report), the undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                          |  |                                                                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: September 9, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Chris L. Koliopoulos
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                          |  | Chris L. Koliopoulos, Ph.D. President and Chief
Executive Officer
#### COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION v. HEOTIS et al.

No. 6211.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

May 19, 1950.

Byron E. Miutoyne and Wilbur B. Ennis, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Marcy K. Brown, Jr., and David H. Bresler, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Heotis.

Irving Kuraner, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Weaver.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

This motion has been examined together with the briefs of counsel. The action is one in replevin. The plaintiff seeks the possession of one 1947 Ford Truck, Motor No. 1643066, together with all attachments thereto and the equipment thereon. The moving defendant has not only filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff, but in like manner has filed a counterclaim against his codefendant, R. H. Weaver. By this motion said defendant now seeks to bring in a third party.

Rule 13, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., is inadequate for the purpose sought by said defendant for the reason that it relates solely and alone to counterclaims either against the plaintiff or against a codefendant. By Rule 14 relating to third-party practice, in a proper case a third-party defendant might he brought in. However, under such circumstances such a third party must either be liable to the third-party plaintiff or to the plaintiff in the action.

This being a simple action of replevin wherein the gist of the action is the right of possession of personal property, there is no place for a third-party proceeding. This is so for the reason that at common law even a counterclaim could not be interposed in a replevin suit. Without statutory authority the rule has been relaxed, however, in Missouri. Boehme v. Roth, Mo.App., 280 S.W. 703; McCormick Harvesting Co. v. Hill, 104 Mo.App. 544, 79 S.W. 745; Ely v. Sutton, 177 Mo.App. 546, 162 S.W. 755.

In a mere replevin suit there would he no basis for third-party adjudications. Accordingly, the motion to bring in a third-party defendant will be denied.