alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6331

TIMOTHY YOUNG , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. LEVERN COHEN, Warden Ridgeland Correctional Institution , Respondent

- Appellee , and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 4:17

- cv - 01897

- JMC )

Submitted : June 14, 2018 Decided: June 19, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Timothy Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief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 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabilit y. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sa tisfies 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 , 5 29 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young 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 le gal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Robert Nichols, Appellant, v David Stamer et al., Defendants, and Orthopedic Associates of Dutchess County, P.C., Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 220]

*833To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, the defendant has the burden of showing that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case *(see Godlewska v Niznikiewicz,*8 AD3d 430, 431 [2004]; *Lyons v McCauley,*252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998]; *Hughes v New York Hosp. Cornell Med. Ctr.,*195 AD2d 442, 443 [1993]; *Colozzo v LoVece,*144 AD2d 617, 618 [1988]). The court may grant the motion only if there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant *(see Farrukh v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*227 AD2d 440, 441 [1996]).

“To establish a prima facie case of liability in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must prove (1) the standard of care in the locality where the treatment occurred, (2) that the defendant breached that standard of care, and (3) that the breach of the standard was the proximate cause of injury” *(Berger v Becker,*272 AD2d 565, 565 [2000] [citations omitted]; *see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). “Expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause” *(Lyons v McCauley,*252 AD2d 516, 517 [1998], citing *Koehler v Schwartz,*48 NY2d 807 [1979]).

The instant case concerns the treatment of the plaintiff’s left leg for “compartment syndrome.” The leg contains four compartments, each of which contains muscles, arteries, and nerves. A bad fracture, such as the one sustained by the plaintiff, can increase the pressure in one of these compartments. Increased pressure can impede blood flow through the capillaries in the compartment, which can damage the muscular, vascular, and nervous tissue in the compartment. The pressure can be relieved by performing a fasciotomy—cutting open the leg specifically to relieve the pressure.

Here, the plaintiffs expert testified that the defendant Orthopedic Associates of Dutchess County, EC. (hereinafter the defendant), departed from the accepted standard of care by delaying the treatment of the plaintiff’s left leg for compartment syndrome for 24 hours. This opinion was flatly contradicted by *834the record. The expert was confronted with undisputed evidence that the plaintiffs left leg contained no necrotic tissue two days after his fasciotomy. The expert conceded that this indicated that the plaintiff could only have been experiencing compartment syndrome for a few hours when the doctors intervened. Thus, the testimony of the plaintiffs expert established neither that the defendant departed from accepted medical practice, nor that any such departure was a proximate cause of his injuries. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit      22**
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William Whittle, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Big Bear Gold Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Big Bear Gold Corporation;
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 such statements 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 the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:
5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit 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 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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 24, 2004

/s/ William WhittleWilliam Whittle, Vice President
(Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 985 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 157
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 985

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 14, 2003

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                             June 20, 2003

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 111 West Washington Street in Bowling Green, Ohio, as the ``Delbert 
                    L. Latta Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 111 
West Washington Street in Bowling Green, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Delbert L. Latta Post Office 
Building''.

                                                       Calendar No. 157

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 985

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 111 West Washington Street in Bowling Green, Ohio, as the ``Delbert 
                    L. Latta Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 20, 2003

                       Reported without amendment
```
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 21

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate should 

ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 

Against Women (CEDAW). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Ms. WOOLSEY (for herself, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mrs. MALONEY, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. 

SANDERS, Mr. NADLER, Ms. LEE, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. 

TOWNS, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. FARR of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. 

LANGEVIN, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. FILNER, Mr. DEUTSCH, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. STARK, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, 

Ms. DELAURO, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mr. DELAHUNT, 

Ms. SOLIS, Mr. LAMPSON, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. WU, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. 

CROWLEY, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of 

Florida, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Ms. NORTON, Mr. SMITH of 

Washington, Ms. WATERS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Ms. PELOSI, 

Ms. ESHOO, Ms. WATSON, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. CARSON

of Indiana, Mr. BACA, Mr. FROST, and Mrs. TAUSCHER) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Senate should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 

(CEDAW).

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—
2

HRES 21 IH 

1 (1) the full realization of the rights of women 

2 is vital to the development and well-being of people 

3 of all nations; and 

4 (2) the Senate should, therefore, give its advice 

5 and consent to the ratification of the Convention on 

6 the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 

7 Against Women.

Æ
LAVANDER BARKLEY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2964

_________ _________________/

Opinion filed February 26, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County

. Jonathan E. Sjostrom , Judge

.

Lavander Barkley, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo B o ndi, Attorney General, Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney

Ge neral, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, C.J., BENTON and THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
1 

Advance copies of this statement are made available to the press 

under lock-up conditions with the explicit understanding that 

the data are embargoed until 8:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. 

Statement of 

John M. Galvin 

Acting Commissioner 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Friday, August 3, 2012

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July, and the 

unemployment rate, at 8.3 percent, was essentially unchanged. 

Thus far in 2012, job growth has averaged 151,000 per month, 

about the same as the monthly average for 2011 (+153,000). In 

July, employment rose in professional and business services, 

food services and drinking places, and manufacturing. 

Professional and business services employment increased by 

49,000 over the month. Computer systems design added 7,000 

jobs, and employment in temporary help services continued to 

trend up (+14,000). 

In July, food services and drinking places added 29,000 

jobs. Employment in this industry has grown by 292,000 over the 

past 12 months. 

Manufacturing employment rose by 25,000 in July. The motor 

vehicles and parts industry had fewer seasonal layoffs than is 
2 

typical for July, contributing to a seasonally adjusted 

employment increase of 13,000. Employment continued to trend up 

in fabricated metal products (+5,000). 

Health care employment continued to trend up in July 

(+12,000). Over the past 2 months, job growth in health care 

averaged 12,000 per month, compared with job gains averaging 

28,000 per month during the 12 months ending in May. 

Employment in utilities decreased by 8,000 in July, 

reflecting a labor-management dispute. (In the establishment 

survey, workers who are off payroll for the entire pay period 

that includes the 12th of the month are not counted as employed.) 

Average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm 

payrolls increased by 2 cents in July to $23.52. Over the past 

12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.7 percent. 

From June 2011 to June 2012, the Consumer Price Index for All 

Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased by 1.7 percent. 

Turning now to data from the survey of households, the 

unemployment rate, at 8.3 percent, and the number of unemployed 

persons, at 12.8 million, were essentially unchanged in July. 

The labor force participation rate, at 63.7 percent, and the 

employment-population ratio, at 58.4 percent, changed little 

over the month. These indicators have shown little movement 

thus far in 2012. 
3 

Among persons who were neither working nor looking for work 

in July, 2.5 million were classified as marginally attached to 

the labor force, down 256,000 from a year earlier. These 

individuals had not looked for work in the 4 weeks prior to the 

survey but wanted a job, were available for work, and had looked 

for a job within the last 12 months. The number of discouraged 

workers, a subset of the marginally attached, was 852,000 in 

July, also down from a year earlier. 

In summary, payroll employment rose in July (+163,000). 

The unemployment rate, at 8.3 percent, was essentially 

unchanged.
#### CLARK et al. v. SPRINGFIELD CITY WATER CO.

No. 1214.

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

Sept. 8, 1953.

John B. Newberry, Springfield, Mo., for plaintiff.

Neale, Newman, Bradshaw, Freeman & Neale, Springfield, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The motion for costs in the above cause should be sustained. The motion to separate the petition of the several plaintiffs into separate counts should be denied. Paragraph (b) of Rule 10, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides for separate statements where each claim is “founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence * * In this case the several plaintiffs plead the identical occurrence at the same time. The prayer supports the claim of each plaintiff and for that reason there is no confusion. The motion to separate, therefore, should be overruled, and it will be so ordered.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this annual report on Form
10-K of OPNET Technologies, Inc. (the Company), I, Joseph W. Kuhn, 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:



| | (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: June 14, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Joseph W. Kuhn
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Joseph W. Kuhn Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17342]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-28-000]


Acadian Gas Pipeline System; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

July 15, 2009.
    Take notice that on July 13, 2009, Acadian Gas Pipeline System 
(Acadian) filed a petition for rate approval for NGPA Section 311 
maximum interruptible transportation rates, pursuant to section 
284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations. Acadian requests that 
the Commission approve an increase in its maximum rate for 
interruptible transportation from $0.25 per MMBtu to $0.3683 per MMBtu 
for gas transported under section 311.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing 
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#377172657478595b5e595264424747584543775152455419505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="10565542535f7e7c797e75436560607f626450767562733e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday, July 30, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17342 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EX-10.16



 Exhibit 10.16 

 

Outside Director Compensation Plan (a)

 (Effective February 2013) 
  

			
	 Annual Cash Retainer:
	  	
		
	 Board Member
	  	$50,000
		
	 Non-Executive Chairman of the Board
	  	$50,000
	 Lead Director
	  	$50,000
	 Audit Committee Chair
	  	$20,000
	 Audit Committee Member
	  	No additional compensation
	 Compensation Committee Chair
	  	$12,500
	 Compensation Committee Member
	  	No additional compensation
	 Nominating Committee Chair
	  	$10,000
	 Nominating Committee Member
	  	No additional compensation
		
	 Additional Payments:
	  	
	 Attendance Fee for In Person Attendance at Board Meeting
	  	$1,000
	 Attendance Fee for Telephonic Attendance at Board Meeting
	  	$500
	 Attendance Fee for Committee Meeting Attendance
	  	$500
		
	 Equity Grant Upon Initial Election or Appointment
New directors – on the date of initial election or appointment
to the Board, new directors (other than directors elected at the annual meeting of stockholders who will receive the annual grant of restricted stock as set forth below) will be entitled to a pro-rata portion of the annual restricted stock award
grant
	  	Pro-rata for partial year of service based on the date of initial election or appointment, relative to the date of the preceding Annual Meeting of Stockholders
		
	 Annual Grant of Restricted Stock (b)
	  	$110,000
		
	 Expense Reimbursement – for travel, lodging and other reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending board
and committee meetings.
	  	

  
  

All amounts listed above are in United States dollars. 
  

	(a)	Each member of the Board, other than a director employed by the Company, is entitled to receive compensation under this plan. 


	(b)	Each share of restricted stock will be fully vested on the first anniversary of the grant date. 

 The number of shares issued for restricted stock awards shall equal the specified dollar value of the restricted stock award divided by the applicable per share ASC 718 charge as of the grant date as
determined by the company for financial reporting purposes. 
 Timing of Director Compensation: Each Director shall receive an initial
restricted stock award the day of the director’s election or appointment to the board. Thereafter, on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders, each person who is either elected to the Board at the annual meeting or continues to serve on
the Board upon the conclusion of the annual meeting will receive all of his or her restricted stock award, which grant will be subject to one year vesting. 
 The cash retainer and other fees will be paid in arrears, quarterly or semi-annually at the Company’s discretion.