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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8013

TERRENCE MAURICE WHITAKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ALVIN W. KELLER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00702-TDS-DPD)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence Maurice Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Maurice Whitaker seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (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) (2006). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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 petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude Whitaker has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Whitaker’s motions for appointment of counsel, for an 

evidentiary hearing, to grant release upon review and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.1





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 Surge Technologies Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 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.





Dated August 25th, 2003



/s/ Gordon McPhedran

Gordon McPhedran

Chief Executive Officer, Director





Dated August 25th, 2003



/s/ Thom Eggerston

Thom Eggerston

Chief Financial Officer
exh10_3.htm


 











Exhibit 10.3







March 13, 2013












Bank of America, N.A.


777 Main Street


Hartford, Connecticut 06115







John B. [Peter K.] Baker


1050 Buckingham Street


Waterbury, CT 06795


 


           Re:  Amendment of Subordinated Note







Ladies and Gentlemen:







Reference is made to (a) the Second Amended and Restated Subordinated Promissory Note dated April 5, 2005 in the original principal amount of $4,700,000 (the “Subordinated Note”) made by Crystal Rock Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd. (“Holdings”), payable to the order of John B. [Peter K.] Baker (the “Payee”), which Subordinated Note was collaterally assigned by the Payee to Bank of America, N.A. (the “Bank”) by the Allonge Endorsement to Second Amended and Restated Subordinated Promissory Note executed by the Payee, which Allonge Endorsement was dated April 5, 2005, and (b) the Subordination and Pledge Agreement dated as of April 5, 2005 (the “Subordination Agreement”) that is referred to in the Subordinated Note.  Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined herein have the meanings given to such terms in the Subordinated Note or the Subordination Agreement, as applicable.







In connection with the Third Amendment to the Credit Agreement, Holdings, the Payee, and the Bank have agreed, and do hereby agree, that by this agreement the Subordinated Note is hereby amended by deleting “October 5, 2015” from clause (iii) of the third paragraph of the Subordinated Note and by substituting therefor the words “October 5, 2018”.







Except as otherwise expressly provided by this agreement, all of the respective terms and provisions of the Subordinated Note and the Subordination Agreement shall remain the same.  The Subordinated Note, as amended hereby, and the Subordination Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. This agreement and the Subordinated Note shall be read and construed as one instrument.


 


This agreement is intended to take effect under, and shall be construed according to and governed by, the internal laws of the State of Connecticut (without reference to principles of conflicts or choice of law).  This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one instrument.  A facsimile or other electronic transmission of an executed counterpart shall have the same effect as the original executed counterpart.


 




  





  











  











Very truly yours,







Crystal Rock Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd.)












By  /s/ Peter K. Baker


Name:  Peter K. Baker


Title:    Chief Executive Officer












Agreed to:












/s/ John B. [Peter K.] Baker


John B. [Peter K.] Baker












Bank of America, N.A.












By /s/ Matthew E. Hummel


Name: Matthew E. Hummel


Title: Senior Vice President
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
 SPECIMEN COMMON STOCK CERTIFICATE 
 NUMBER
             SHARES 

NV-             
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN 
 DEFINITIONS 

CUSIP 62945V 10 9 

NV5 HOLDINGS, INC. 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 COMMON STOCK

  

			
	THIS CERTIFIES that	 	  



			
	is the owner of	 	  


 Fully Paid and Non-Assessable Shares of the Common Stock, par value $0.01 per Share of NV5 Holdings, Inc. transferable
only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate property endorsed. 
 This
Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation
has caused this certificate to be signed by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers and its Corporate seal to be hereunto affixed. 
 DATED:              
  

					
	  
	 		 	  

	President	 		 	Secretary

 Countersigned and Registered 
 Registrar and Transfer Company 
 Transfer Agent and Registrar 

 

			
	By:	 	  

		 	Authorized Signature








 NV5 HOLDINGS, INC. 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:

  

															
	TEN COM	 	—	 	as tenants in common	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 	—	 	  
	 	Custodian	 	  

		 		 		 		 		 	(Cust)	 		 	(Minor)
						
	TEN ENT	 	—	 	as tenants by the entireties	 		 		 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
						
		 		 		 		 		 	  

		 		 		 		 		 		 	(State)	 	
	JT TEN	 	—	 	as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common	 		 		 		 		 	

 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

For Value Received,
                                         
                                        hereby
sell, assign and transfer unto  
  

	
	 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

	     

  
  

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 

 
  

			
	  
	 	Shares of

 the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

  
  

			
	  
	 	Attorney to

 transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

  

			
	Dated:	 	 

  

			
		 	  

		 	(SIGNATURE)
		
		 	  

		 	(SIGNATURE)
		
	Notice:	 	THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY
CHANGE WHATEVER.


 Signature(s) Guaranteed 
  

			
	By:	 	  

		 	THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED
SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 10, 2022

No. 04-22-00152-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Q.M.C., A Child,

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021PA00761

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights which 

must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX.

R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. After receiving a twenty-day extension of time, appellant’s brief was due on 

May 9, 2022. On that day, appellant filed a second motion requesting a ten-day extension of 

time. After consideration, we grant the motion and order appellant to file her brief by May 19, 

2022.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of May, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
# 19SUMM1_13

# image1.png
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2014

No. 04-14-00612-CV

David Allan EDWARDS,

Appellant

v.

SHERIFF OF COUNTY OF ATASCOSA,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-02-0185-CVA

Honorable Thomas F. Lee, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due on September 29, 2014. Neither the brief nor a 

motion for extension of time has been filed. Appellant is representing himself, pro se. It is 

therefore ORDERED that appellant file his brief no later than November 13, 2014. If appellant

fails to file the brief by this date or fails to reasonably explain the reason for his failure to do so, 

this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a).

The Clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on appellant by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, and by United States mail. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      (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 registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (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
registrants ability to record, 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: December 18, 2009
    /s/ Ronald B. GeibRonald B. GeibPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of William Lopez, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 706]

Petitioner, an inmate, was found face down and unresponsive in the prison yard. As a result, he was taken to the facility hospital for examination. It was determined that he was in dire condition and an ambulance was summoned. Once the ambulance arrived, medication was administered and petitioner was transported to an outside hospital for treatment. While there, a drug screen was conducted which proved positive for opiates. Consequently, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with illicit drug use. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he *1045was found guilty as charged. That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the related documentation and testimony adduced at the hearing, comprise substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Callender v Goord,*24 AD3d 1145, 1145 [2005]). To the extent that petitioner asserted that he had been assaulted and drugged against his will, a credibility issue was created for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Pagan v Selsky,*45 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2007]). Petitioner's claim that the drug testing forms were not produced at the hearing and/or given to him is unpreserved for our review given that he failed to lodge an objection at the hearing *(see Matter of Filpo v Goord,*37 AD3d 891, 892 [2007]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that, the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1384 KA 10-01085 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
JOHNNY CANNON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered May 3, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6192
MARK AUBREY WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAR OLINA; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-94-2500-3-18-BC) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Aubrey Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. 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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent acertificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. South Carolina , No. CA-94-2500-3-18-BC (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 1995). 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
[No. 53669-9-I.

Division One.

October 17, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Curtis Leonard, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Island County, No. 03-1-00205-5, Alan R. Hancock, J., entered December 17, 2003. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Schindler, J., concurred in by Coleman, J.; Kennedy, J., indicated her concurrence prior to her death on September 16, 2005.
EX-10.1



 



 
 Amendment # 3 to Manufacturing Agreement 

Between: iRobot Corporation and Kin Yat Industrial Co. Ltd 
 PARTIES 
  

	(1)	iRobot Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 8 Crosby Drive, Bedford, Massachusetts, 01730, USA (“Buyer”).


  

	(2)	Kin Yat Industrial Co. Ltd., a Hong Kong Company having its place of business at 7/F Galaxy Factory Building, 25-27 Luk Hop Street, San Po Kong, Kowloon, Hong
Kong (hereinafter referred to as (“Seller”). 

 WHEREAS, the Parties executed the
Manufacturing Agreement dated 23rd March, 2007
(“Manufacturing Agreement”). 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to clause 18.3 of the Manufacturing Agreement, the Parties wish to amend the
Agreement; 
 For good and valuable consideration, Effective as of March 23, 2013, the following amendments are hereby agreed: 

Clause 15.1 will be replaced in its entirety with the following: 
 This Agreement shall become effective as of the date of execution and, unless extended by written agreement of the parties or earlier terminated under the provision of this Section 15, it shall expire
“on September 23, 2013.” 
 During this extension period, the Parties agree to work together in good faith on a new
Manufacturing Agreement. 
 If any conflict or inconsistency occurs between this Amendment and the Manufacturing Agreement, the provisions of
this Amendment shall prevail. The remainder of the Manufacturing Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unamended. 
  

					
	 Signed by a duly authorised director or
 officer for and on behalf of iRobot
 Corporation

Print full name: Oscar Zamorano

Position: SVP Operations & Supply Chain
	 		 	  
  
  

Signature:
 






  

					
	 Signed by a duly authorised director or
 officer for and on behalf of Kin Yat
 Industrial Co. Ltd

Print full name: Vincent Fung

Position: Director of Kin Yat Industrial Co. Ltd
	 		 	  
  
  

Signature:
Exhibit 13.1

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

     I, Zvi Slonimsky, as Chief Executive Officer of Alvarion Ltd. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1)  the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
          December 31, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
          Commission (the "Report") 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 Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

Dated: 20 June, 2005


                                        /s/ Zvi Slonimsky
                                        -------------------------
                                        Zvi Slonimsky
                                        Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                                ADE CORPORATION
            STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                       Three months ended                Six months ended
                                                          October 31,                       October 31,
                                                       ------------------                ----------------
                                                      1996          1995                1996         1995
                                                      ----          ----                ----         ----
                                                          (unaudited)                       (unaudited)

<S>                                             <C>              <C>            <C>             <C>
                                                      
 
Net income                                         $2,933,000      $1,672,000        $5,387,000   $3,002,000
                                                   ==========      ==========        ==========   ==========
 
Weighted average common and
 common equivalent shares outstanding
 during the period                                  7,951,000       6,502,000         7,997,000    6,305,000
 
Shares issuable pursuant to Staff Accounting
 Bulletin No. 83 (SAB 83) using
 treasury stock method                                    ---             ---               ---       82,000
 
Shares used in computation                          7,951,000       6,502,000         7,997,000    6,387,000
                                                   ==========      ==========        ==========   ==========
 
Net income per share                               $     0.37      $     0.26        $     0.67   $     0.47
                                                   ==========      ==========        ==========   ==========
</TABLE>