alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60108

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANIEL DEE QUEEN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:01-CR-133-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Dee Queen appeals his 24-month revocation sentence. The

Government petitioned for the revocation of his supervised release based on a

positive drug screen for cocaine and charges filed against Queen in Mississippi

for kidnapping and armed robbery. According to Queen, his sentence was

substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary in light of the

nature and circumstances of his case. Because he did not object to the

reasonableness of the sentence in the district court, review is for plain error. See

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-60108 Document: 00512118401 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2013
No. 12-60108

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). He must show

a clear or obvious error (one not subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his

substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). We

have the discretion to correct such an error, but only if it seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Id.

Queen notes that the sentence for his underlying federal offense did not

run concurrently with his state sentence for extortion, despite his understanding

that it would. He asserts that the evidence of his supervised release violations

was weak because the drug screen was unreliable and because he was allowed

to plead guilty to disorderly conduct and petit larceny. He also asserts that his

guilty plea to the state charges was not an admission of guilt. Finally, Queen

contends that a shorter revocation sentence would better serve his need for

education and vocational training. 

The 24-month sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. See

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Queen cites no authority for the propositions that a

revocation sentence is unreasonable where the defendant’s earlier sentences

were consecutive, where he denied committing the violations, where the evidence

arguably was weak, or where he will benefit from education and training after

his release. He fails to show that the sentence was plainly erroneous,

particularly given the wide latitude district courts have to devise appropriate

revocation sentences. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Miller,

634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-60108 Document: 00512118401 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL IFNORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ALLAIRE
CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,532
<SECURITIES>                                    33,971
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,602
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (547)
<INVENTORY>                                        224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,305
<PP&E>                                           7,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,221)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,642
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,719
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,300
<SALES>                                         17,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,772
<CGS>                                            1,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,701
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 206
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,529)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,529)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,529)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      AS OF QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                              DECEMBER 31, 1997            DECEMBER 31,1996
                                              -----------------            ----------------
<S>                                           <C>                          <C>
Net income / (Loss)                             $    300,680                 $  111,066

Weighted average shares outstanding                2,189,918                  2,171,194

Earning / (Loss) per shares outstanding         $       0.14                 $     0.07
</TABLE>


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                              DECEMBER 31, 1997           DECEMBER 31,1996
                                              -----------------           ----------------
<S>                                          <C>                             <C>
Net income / (Loss)                          $   940,221                     ($368,679)

Weighted average shares outstanding            2,185,376                     2,166,992

Earning / (Loss) per shares outstanding      $      0.43                        ($0.17)
</TABLE>


                                       19
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7099

WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN O’NEIL; ASSISTANT WARDEN PETERSON; MAJOR ALEO; LIEUTENANT KITZ; LIEUTENANT MEESE(Female); GEORGE HOLDORF, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ROBERTS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MCCLOUD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICERFLEMING; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MASON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JAMES (Female), others to be listed thru discovery, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-896-DKC) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Allen Legg appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for copies of pleadings at Government expense. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Legg v. O’Neil , No. CA-98-896-DKC (D. Md. May 5, 1998). 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
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Lewis v. Kim et al.

July 22, 1998

Case No. (Law) CL970438

By Judge Alfred D. Swersky

Defendant’s Motion in Limine barring evidence of Defendant’s offer to pay additional medical bills will be granted even though the offer was not communicated to Plaintiff.

The offer to pay the fees of the subsequent treating physician are analogous to an offer of compromise, evidence of which is clearly barred under Virginia law. *Richmond v. Ewing’s Sons,*201 Va. 862 (1960). The scope of the rule barring such evidence is indicated in *Agelasto v. Atkinson Real Estate,*229 Va. 59 (1985), in which the court ruled that Defendant’s compromise of another claim similar to Plaintiffs did not constitute an express admission of liability and, hence, was inadmissible.

The same could be said here, where the Defendant’s offer to pay the fees of the subsequent treating physician was made to that physician and not to Plaintiff. Such an offer does not constitute an express admission of liability.
**Exhibit** **32.2**

 

**ANTARES PHARMA, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned, Robert F. Apple, the Chief Financial Officer of Antares Pharma, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”).

 

The undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the 13th day of August, 2009.

 

|   |   |   |   | /s/ Robert F. Apple                                                   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Robert F. Apple

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   |   |                                                                  |
##### 



Exhibit 4(c)(viii)
 New InterContinental Hotels Group PLC
 Registered Office: 67 Alma Road, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 3HD
Registered Number: 5134420
  
  New InterContinental Hotels Group PLC (the Company)
  IHG
      Admission
  1




---



##### 



IHG Group
 Service Agreement
  Signed as a Deed
 New Intercontinental Hotels Group PLC
    
    
    )acting by
    
    
    
    
    ))Director
    
    
    
    
    ))Secretary
    
    
    
    
    )
    
    
    /s/ R. T. WinterSigned as a Deedby
    
    
    
    
    )
    
    
    /s/ Andrew Cosslett)Andrew Cosslett
    
    
    
    
    ))In the presence of:
    
    
    
    
    )Witnesss signature
    
    /s/ Tracy Moore
    
    
    )Witnesss name:
    
    Tracy MooreWitnesss address:7 ADMIRAL KEPPLE COURTFERNBANK ROADNORTH ASCOT, BERSHIRE-5158LUWitnesss occupation:Personal Assistant
  2
ex_110860.htm


Exhibit 10.21


 


Amendment No. 1 to Executive Employment Agreement


 


This Amendment No. 1 to the Board of Directors Agreement (the “First Amendment”) is entered into as of April 1, 2018 by and among Tapinator, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Robert Crates, an individual residing with the State of Texas (“Director”)


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Director are parties to that certain Board of Directors Agreement made as of December 14, 2015 (the “Original Agreement”); and


 


WHERES, the Company and Director desire to amend the Original Agreement as set forth in this First Amendment.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Director and the Company agree as follows:


 


1.     Incorporation of Recitals; Defined Terms. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference into this First Amendment. Capitalized terms used, and not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Original Agreement.


 


2.     Amendments to Original Agreement.


 


(a)     As of the date hereof, Section 1 of the Original Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:


 


“The terms of the Original Agreement shall continue for a period of two (2) years from the date of this First Amendment and shall continue thereafter for as long as Director is elected as a member of the Board of Directors of Company (the “Board”) or as otherwise terminated pursuant to this Agreement.”


 


(b)     As of the date hereof, Section 3(a) of the Original Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:


 


“Director Fee. Beginning with the fiscal second quarter of 2018, Director shall earn quarterly cash compensation of $5,000. Cash compensation due Director under this Section 3(a) shall be paid within forty-five days from the end of the calendar quarter in which such compensation was earned.”


 


3.     Miscellaneous. The Original Agreement and this First Amendment contain the entire understanding of the Company and Director with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede all prior representations, agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter hereof. In the event of an inconsistency between the terms of the Original Agreement with respect to the matters the subject matter hereof, this First Amendment will govern.   Except as explicitly amended by this First Amendment, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 



1




 




 


In Witness Whereof, the Company and Director have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Board of Directors Agreement be executed and as of the date referenced above.


 


 


Company: 


 


tapinator, inc.


 


 


 


	By:	 	 
	Name:  Ilya Nikolayev	 
	Title:    Chief Executive Officer	 



 


 


 


 


Director: 


 


 


 


 


	By:	 	 
	Name:  Robert Crates	 



 


 2
Order issued July 29, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________
No. 05-13-01555-CR No. 05-13-01556-CR No. 05-13-01557-CR

________________________________________

THOMAS MATTHEW COREA, Appellant



### V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



### O R D E R

Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the March 2, 2015 motion of

Riann C. Moore for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk

of the Court to remove Riann C. Moore as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this orde r and all future correspondence to Thomas Matthew

Corea, TDCJ No. 1892436, Ellis Unit, 1697 FM 980, Huntsville, Texas, 77343.

/David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
EX-99.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                          PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  (the
"Report") of Amplidyne,  Inc. (the  "Company") for the six months ended June 30,
2003, I, Devendar S. Bains,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Principal  Accounting
Officer of the Company,  hereby certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, 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.

/s/ Devendar S. Bains
---------------------
Devendar S. Bains
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

August 14, 2003
STATE OF DELAWARE
                                                          SECRETARY OF STATE
                                                       DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
                                                       FILED 09:00 AM 12/06/2002
                                                          020748232 - 2206586

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     ON THE
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          HOLLYWOOD PARTNERS.COM, INC.

                             Pursuant to Section 242
                         of the General Corporation Law

                            of the State of Delaware

      HOLLYWOOD PARTNERS.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"),
hereby certifies as follows:

      FIRST: The amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation to be effected
hereby is as follows:

            Paragraph 1 of the Certificate of Incorporation, relating to the
      authorized capital stock of the Corporation, is hereby amended to read as
      follows:

            "FIRST: The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the
      "Corporation") is Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc."

      SECOND: The foregoing amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation was duly adopted by the holders of at least a majority of the
outstanding shares entitled to vote by their giving written consent thereto in
accordance with Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by its President and its Secretary this 4th day of
December 2002.

                                        HOLLYWOOD PARTNERS.COM, INC.


                                        /s/ Valerie A. Broadbent
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Valerie A. Broadbent, President


                                        /s/ Valerie A. Broadbent, Secretary
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Valerie A. Broadbent, Secretary
----

|   | (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. |

| /s/   Edmund C. Reiter        |      | /s/  Richard P. Moberg |      |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------------|
| President & Chief Executive Officer |                     | Chief Financial Officer          |                     |
|                                    |                     |                             |                     |
| Date:  April 29, 2010         |                     | Date: April 29, 2010             |                     |
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

** **

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Cornell Companies, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JamesE. Hyman, Chief Executive Officer, President and the Chairman of the Board,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe 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. |

 
|   | /s/  James E. Hyman                       |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | James  E. Hyman, Chief Executive Officer, |
|   | President  and Chairman of the Board      |
|   | August 7,  2009                      |

 

Note:  The certification theregistrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to theliabilities of that Section. Registration Statements or other documents filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit,except as otherwise stated in such filing.

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00191-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.R.P., a Child

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-03045

Honorable Charles Montemayor, Judge Presiding1

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portion of the trial court’s order 

setting forth the terms and conditions of the possessory conservator’s possession and access is 

REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED for a new trial on that issue. Costs of the appeal are 

taxed against the parties who incurred them; however, it is ORDERED that no costs shall be 

assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because she qualifies as indigent under TEX.

R. APP. P. 20.

SIGNED August 6, 2014.

_____________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

1 The Honorable Martha Tanner presided over the hearing on the motion for new trial.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00328-CV

RUBY TAYLOR, Appellant

V.

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF FORT 

WORTH, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 348th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (348-331274-22)

March 14, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that Ruby Taylor shall pay all costs of this appeal, for 

which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth