alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 7 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RONALD EDWARD GILLETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 01-2119 ROBERT PERRY, Secretary of Corrections; NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT; BERNALILLO COUNTY, New Mexico; JACK L. LOVE, District Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees. (D.C. No. CIV-01-14 LH/KBM) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BeforeHENRY , BRISCOE and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Ronald Edward Gillette, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a false2

imprisonment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the district court on January 2, 2001. On February 9, 2001, the district court dismissed the complaint, finding the claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (holding a convicted defendant may not bring an action for damages under § 1983 unless and until his sentence is set aside). Gillette filed his objections to the order on March 5, 2001 (the certificate shows it was placed in prison mail on February 27). The district court considered the objections as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and denied the motion on March 20, 2001. Gillette filed his notice of appeal on April 5, 2001. The motion for relief from judgment was not filed within ten days of the district court's judgment. Therefore, the motion must be construed as one pursuant to Rule 60(b).
SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Van Skiver v. United States , 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). Gillette's appeal from the denial of the motion raises for review only the district court's order of denial and not the underlying judgment. Id. We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See White v. American Airlines, Inc. , 915 F.2d 1414, 1425 (10th Cir. 1990). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gillette's motion. The district court found that “even assuming the validity of Plaintiff's underlying premise for purposes of this order, he may not bring a claim of illegal sentence under § 1983 unless and until his sentence [is] set aside.” ROA, Doc. 11. Gillette has failed to demonstrate any basis for relief under Rule 60(b).3

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Gillette's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge
Exhibit 32.2

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Philip L.
Jones, as Chief Operating Officer of Profile Technologies, Inc., hereby certify
that the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Profile
Technologies, Inc.


                                           /s/ Philip L. Jones
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Philip L. Jones,
                                           Chief Operating Officer












                                       28
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133214 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ROBERTA HOPKINS, Personal Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Olive Herford, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133214 

 COA: 261867 

Genesee CC: 04-079449-NH 

JAMES E. GRAHAM, JR., M.D., and 

JAMES E. GRAHAM, JR., M.D., P.C.,

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

FARAH TAHER, M.D., PHAN ANH 

NGUYEN, and HURLEY MEDICAL 

CENTER, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of Mullins v St Joseph Mercy Hosp (Docket No. 131879) is pending on appeal 

before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the 

present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in 

ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. 

l0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL A. HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-1) Submitted: March 19, 2004 Decided: April 12, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael A. Harris appeals the district court’s orders denying his “Motion for Downward Departure and/or Relief from Sentencing Enhancements Through Reconsideration of a Sentence of Imprisonment” and motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Harris , No. CR-93-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2003 & Sept. 2, 2003). 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDY GAMAS LOPEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73228

Agency No. A089-294-649

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 14, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Fredy Gamas Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

NOV 10 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.

2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the denial of Gamas Lopez’s CAT claim

because Gamas Lopez failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. 

See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, we deny the

petition for review as to Gamas Lopez’s CAT claim.

The record compels the conclusion, however, that Gamas Lopez established

his political neutrality was a central reason for the harms he suffered and fears. See

Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1488 (9th Cir. 1997) (an applicant may establish a

political opinion by establishing political neutrality “in an environment in which

political neutrality is fraught with hazard”); see also Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011,

1017-19 (9th Cir. 2011) (record compelled the conclusion that petitioner

established one central reason for persecution was a protected ground). Thus, we

grant the petition for review as to Gamas Lopez’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims, and we remand this case to the agency for further proceedings

consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)

(per curiam). 

2 11-73228
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

3 11-73228
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2338 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2338

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the ``Harry T. and 
                     Harriette Moore Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2011

  Mr. Posey (for himself, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Southerland, Ms. 
Brown of Florida, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Mica, Mr. 
 Webster, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Young of Florida, Ms. Castor of Florida, 
Mr. Ross of Florida, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Mack, Mr. Rooney, Ms. Wilson of 
Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Deutch, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Diaz-
Balart, Mr. West, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mrs. Adams, and Mr. Rivera) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the ``Harry T. and 
                     Harriette Moore Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE MOORE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harry T. 
and Harriette Moore Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
ex10-4.htm


Exhibit 10.4


 


RUBY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY


P.O. Box 1241


Grass Valley, CA  95945







December 29, 2011







Perry Leopold, CEO


North Bay Resources Inc.


P.O. Box 162


Skippack, PA  19474


215-661-1100







Monthly Mortgage Payment Adjustment












Dear Perry,







This letter is to formalize our agreement that, as per the emails between our companies, Ruby Development Company hereby authorizes North Bay Resources to pay reduced monthly mortgage payments of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) principal and interest for each of the three mortgage payments due and payable on January 1, 2012, February 1, 2012, and March 1, 2012.













Yours truly,












RUBY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY












 



	By:	/s/ W.R. Frederking
	 	W. R. “Rick” Frederking, Partner





 







Acknowledged and Agreed this 29th day of December, 2011,







North Bay Resources, Inc.












 




	By:	/s/ Perry Leopold
	 	Perry Leopold, President and CEO
Order entered January 1 5 , 2020

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01446

- CV

IN RE TASCA HOLDINGS , LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 13564



### O RDER

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relators’ petition for writ of

mandamus.

/Ken Molberg/

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
HTML


      
         
            
                                                
               

                                                
               

               Exhibit 10.2

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2                     
TO THE                     
RUDDICK CORPORATION FLEXIBLE DEFERRAL PLAN                     
(Amended and Restated July 1, 2009)                  
               

                                 WITNESSETH:
               

                                 WHEREAS, Ruddick Corporation ("Ruddick") sponsors the Ruddick Corporation
                  Flexible Deferral Plan ("FDP"), an unfunded nonqualified deferred
                  compensation plan for designated key employees and directors; and

               

                                 WHEREAS, in Section 9.1 of the FDP, Ruddick reserved the right to amend the
                  FDP at any time in whole or in part;
               

                                 WHEREAS, in Section 9.1 of the FDP, the Administrative Committee is granted
                  the right, in its sole discretion, to amend the FDP unless such
                  amendment results in significantly increased FDP expenses;

               

                                 WHEREAS, Ruddick desires to amend the FDP to eliminate deferral
                  contributions of Director Fees;
               

                                 WHEREAS, the Administrative Committee approved at its November 4, 2010
                  meeting an amendment to the FDP to eliminate deferral contributions
                  of Director Fees as provided herein.
               

                                 NOW THEREFORE, in order to effect the foregoing, the FDP is hereby amended
                  as follows:
               

                     Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Plan to the
                  contrary, Participants may not elect to defer Director Fees under the
                  Plan for Plan Years beginning on and after January 1, 2011.
               

               Except as expressly or by necessary implication amended hereby, the
                  FDP shall continue in full force and effect.
               

                                 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Ruddick has caused this instrument to be executed this 18th day of
                  January, 2011 by its duly authorized officer effective as provided
                  herein to be effective January 1, 2011.
               

               
                  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 



                        	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	                              RUDDICK CORPORATION
                           	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	/s/ John B. Woodlief                                                        	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	John B. Woodlief, Vice President - Finance and                              
 Chief Financial Officer
#### President & Directors of the Ins. Co. of North America *v.*St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. Same *v.*Same. Same *v.*Same.

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

1882.)

Common Carreer — Freight—Loss by Negligence,

Although the shipment of cotton in open flat cars may not he in'itself such negligence as would make the carrier liable under all contingencies, yet, when such shipment is made, there is devolved on the carrier the duty to take additional precautions for the protection and safety of the cotton.

Trial by the Court without a Jury.

Three cases were brought by the plaintiff, an insurance company, against the defendant, a railway company, to recover damages for loss of cotton while in charge of defendant, as carrier, while being transported over its line on open flat cars. The insurance company had been subrogated to the rights of the several consignees by payment of their claims under their policies of insurance,

*Robert Harrison,*for plaintiff,

*Portis & Pike,*for defendant.

*381Treat, D. J.

These’eases were heard at the same time,'and rest mainly on the same general principles. Some of the evidence introduced was incompetent, it being merely hearsay, as contradistinguished from “ verbal facts.” Discarding all such, the main question decisive of the eases is as to defendant’s negligence. Although the shipment of cotton on open or flat cars may not be in itself such an act of negligence as would make the carrier liable under all contingencies, yet, when such shipment is made, there is devolved upon the carrier the duty to take the additional precautions needed for the protection and safety of the cotton. In these eases it seems that not only was no such precaution taken, but that the train, in two of the cases, was hurried forward when fires were adjacent to the track, or sufficiently so to render it more than probable that so inflammable an article would be ignited and destroyed. In the other case, the negligence, although not so gross, was extremely culpable. It is admitted that if the loss was caused by defendant’s negligence the plaintiff must recover. It is unnecessary to consider what effect, if any, the Texas statute would have upon the exemptions in the hills of lading against loss by fire, so far as the defendant is concerned. Rev. St. Texas, 1879, p. 48.

Judgments for the plaintiff will be entered for the respective amounts, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per year from January 10, 1877, with costs.
UC Agreement No.: [****]


UC Case No(s): [****]







AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LETTER OF INTENT







This Amendment No. 2 to the Letter of Intent dated as of May 11, 2010 and bearing UC Agreement No. [****] (“Agreement”) by and between The Regents of the University of California (“The Regents”) and Nascent Water Technologies, Inc. (“Nascent Water”) is effective December 7, 2010.







WHEREAS, the parties desire to add to the Inventions covered under the Agreement UC Case No. [****] ([****]);







WHEREAS, provisional patent application number [****]covering UC Case No. [****]was filed by The Regents’ counsel on [****];







WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge that Nascent Water will reimburse The Regents under the Agreement for patent costs related to UC Case No. [****]incurred by The Regents beginning as of December 7, 2010 and continuing through the remaining Term of the Agreement, including any extensions; and







WHEREAS, for mutual consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties desire to modify the terms of the Agreement.







NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:







1.           Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meaning set forth in the Agreement.







2.           The following UC Case is hereby added to the definition of Inventions under the Agreement:







“UC Case No. [****]







Title: [****]







Application Number: [****]







Filing Date: [****]”







3.           As of the effective date of this Amendment No.2 to the Agreement, all references to the Inventions in the Agreement will include UC Case No. [****]and all obligations on the part of either party with regard to the Inventions will include UC Case No. [****], including, but not limited to, obligations to reimburse patent costs and obligations, if any, with regard to Nascent Water paying estimated patent costs prior to authorization of filings by The Regents.







4.           The following fee is hereby added to the Agreement and will be attributable to UC Case No. [****]:







“A one-time non-creditable, non-refundable fee of $[****].”  A check in the amount of $[****] for the fee should be enclosed when this Amendment No. 2 is returned to The Regents for final execution.  The check should be made out to The Regents of the University of California.







5.           Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and are hereby reaffirmed by the parties.


 




	
ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

	  	  
	  	  	  
	
NASCENT WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

	  	
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF


CALIFORNIA


	  	  	  
	
By:

	  	  	
By:

	  	  
	
Name:

	  	  	
Name: Sherylle Mills Englander


	
Title:

	  	  	
Title: Director, Technology & Industry Alliances
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-K of FS Investment Corporation III (the Company) for the year ended
December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), Michael C. Forman, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael Lawson, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each 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 my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-K of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|Dated: March 18, 2015  
|                       
|/S/ MICHAEL C. FORMAN  
|Michael C. Forman      
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|/S/ MICHAEL LAWSON     
|Michael Lawson         
|Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter
63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of SRI.



|                     |  |     |  |                                               
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Christopher S. Carlton                    
|                     |  |     |  | Christopher S. Carlton                        
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer         
|                     |  |    
|Date: August 9, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Wallace D. Ruiz                           
|                     |  |     |  | Wallace D. Ruiz                               
|                     |  |     |  | Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer