alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas DAVIS, a/k/a Thomas Edwards, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND; Bobby Shearin, Warden, Respondents-Appellees, and John Rowley, Respondent.

No. 10-6997.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 28, 2011.

Decided: April 1, 2011.

Thomas Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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. *See*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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We *241dispense 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.*
#### Robert Lebeau, Respondent, v Grace M. Morales et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[665 NYS2d 940]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated November 22, 1996, as denied that branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) which was to dismiss the first cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s first cause of action is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7). Furthermore, the damages alleged in the complaint constituted consequential damages which may be recoverable *(see, Kenford Co. v County of Erie,*73 NY2d 312; *Affiliated Credit Adjustors v Carlucci & Legum,*139 AD2d 611). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.2


 


Summary of Agreement in English


 


 


Contract #02010570858


 


		·	Type: Overdraft



		·	Maturity: August 2014



		·	Original value contract: R$ 350.000,00



		·	Balance due: R$ 538.499,00 (approximately USD $200,000)



		·	Discount granted: R$ 230.331,14 (approximately USD $85,000)



 


 


Contract #12348346613


 


		·	Type: Working Capital



		·	Maturity: January 2016



		·	Original value contract: R$ 508.269,57 in December 2013



		·	Balance due: R$ 509.953,61 (approximately USD $190,000)



		·	Discount granted: R$ 218.121,47 (approximately USD $81,000)



		·	Total assumed debt for the two outstanding debt: R$
1.048.452,61 (approximately USD $391,000)



		·	Cash repayment: R$ 600.000,00 (approximately USD $224,000)
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-50637 Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TONY EDWARD POWELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CR-004-ALL

_________________________________________________________________ April 22, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tony Edward Powell appeals h is conviction for possession of

crack cocaine with intent to distribute. He argues that the scope

of his consent to search his vehicle for drugs or weapons did not

extend under the hood of the vehicle, an d that the evidence at

trial was insufficient to support his conviction. Since the

officer indicated that he wished to search for drugs or weapons,

and since it is objectively reasonable to infer from consent to-2-

such a search that the area under the hood is not excluded, the

search did not exceed the scope of the consent. S ee United States

v. McSween

, 53 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir.), c ert. denied

, 116 S.Ct.

199 (1995); United States v. Rich , 992 F.2d 502, 506-07 (5th Cir.

1993). Powell’s failure to limit the scope of his consent to

exclude the area under the hood further supports the legality of

the search. Id.

Viewin g the evidence in the light most favorable to the

government, it does not appear that a manifest miscarriage of

justice has occurred. The record is not devoid of evidence that

Powell knowingly possessed crack cocaine with t he intent to

distribute it. S ee United States v. Garza

, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th

Cir. 1993); United States v. Pierre

, 958 F.2d 1304, 1310 (5th Cir.

1992) (en banc).

A F F I R M E D.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sun NewMedia, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Thomas A. Schuler, Chief Financial Officer and CompanySecretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934;and

2.       The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Thomas A. Schuler                       |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Thomas A.  Schuler, Chief Financial Officer |   |
| Date: December  15, 2006                    |   |

 

----
exv10w1



 




EXHIBIT 10.1




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of March
29, 2007, by and between IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Image”), and
MARTIN W. GREENWALD, an individual (“Executive”), with respect to that certain Employment
Agreement, dated April 1, 2004 by and between Image and Executive (the “Agreement”).



The following shall amend the Agreement currently in effect as set forth herein. Except as
modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms
used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.



1. Amendment of Paragraph 7. The first clause of the second sentence of Paragraph 7
shall be amended to replace March 31, 2007 with May 31, 2007 such that the amended sentence shall
read as follows:



“The second one year option must be exercised by Image by May 31, 2007, in the same manner
described above, to extend the term from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009.”



2. Amendment of Paragraph 13. The first sentence of Subsection (a)of Paragraph 13
shall be amended to read as follows:



“If (1) this Agreement is terminated by Image prior to expiration of the Term for any reason
other than (a) pursuant to Paragraph 10 (Death) or 11 (Permanent Disability/Suspension), (b) for
Cause or (c) pursuant to Paragraph 14 (Executive’s Right to Terminate for Good Reason) and if such
termination occurs after a Change in Control, Executive shall be entitled to receive all of the
compensation, rights and benefits described in Paragraphs 3(a) and (b), 4 and 5 for a period of one
year following the effective date of termination, or through the expiration of the Term, whichever
is longer, and the severance described in Paragraph 6, as if this Agreement were in full force and
effect.”



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be duly
executed as of the day and year first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:



IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Dennis Hohn Cho
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Dennis Hohn Cho 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and

Corporate Secretary 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/ Martin W. Greenwald
 	 
	 	Martin W. Greenwald
Murphy Exploration & Production Co.

- USA, A Delaware /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Anton io, Texas** 

August 27, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00118

- CV

Shirley ADAMS , Charlene Burgess , Willie Mae Herbst Jasik, William Albert Herbst, Helen Herbst and R. May Oil & Gas Company, Ltd., Appellants

v.

MURPHY EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION CO.

- USA , A Delaware Corporati on, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas Trial Court No. 13

- 05

- 0466

- CVA Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellee ’ s Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The appellee ’ s brief is due on September 21, 2015.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 27th day of August, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44128

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

GROVER EARL MCALISTER JR. ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 824

Filed: December 27, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K. C. Meyer , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony eluding a peace officer, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds

, Deputy Appellate Public Defe nder, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Grover Earl McAlister Jr. pled guilty to felony eluding a peace officer . I.C. § 49

- 1404(2)

. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court

sentenced McAlister to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of2

two years

. McAlister filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. McAlister

appeals. 1

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, McAlister ’s j udgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

1 McAlister also pled guilty to misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident and was sentenced to a concurrent six

- month term. However, he does not challenge this sentence on appeal.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 11.1

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
              For the Years Ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001
              (In Thousands of Euros, Except for Per Share Amounts)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 BASIC EPS

                                                        2003                2002                 2001
                                                  -----------------    ----------------     ----------------
<S>                                               <C>                 <C>                  <C>
Net loss per financial statements                 EURO     (2,786)     EURO    (3,622)      EURO   (15,701)
                                                  =================    ================     ================

Weighted average shares outstanding                    51,285,044          50,045,658           42,459,784

     Basic earnings (loss) per share              EURO       (.05)     EURO      (.07)      EURO      (.37)
                                                  =================    ================     ================
</Table>

<Table>
<CAPTION>
                                                DILUTED EPS

                                                        2003                2002                 2001
                                                  -----------------    ----------------     ----------------
<S>                                               <C>                 <C>                  <C>
Net loss per financial statements                 EURO     (2,786)     EURO    (3,622)      EURO   (15,701)
                                                  =================    ================     ================

Weighted average shares outstanding                    51,285,044          50,045,658           42,459,784

     Diluted earnings (loss) per share*           EURO       (.05)     EURO      (.07)      EURO      (.37)
                                                  =================    ================     ================
</TABLE>




                                       85
#### Samuel L. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY; Lillian Gilliam; Lt. Biggs; Ms. Walton, Defendants-Appellees, and A. Spruill; Gibbs; Sanderlin; C/O Brown, Defendants.

No. 10-7720.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Samuel L. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellees.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*297PER CURIAM:

Samuel L. Brown appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Brown V. Hathaway,*No. 5:09-et-03004-BO, 2010 WL 4809034 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2009); (Nov. 18, 2010). 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.*
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3102 

To increase the Federal share for transportation projects for the State of 

Michigan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2009 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan (for herself, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. CAMP, Mr. MCCOTTER, and Mr. UPTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To increase the Federal share for transportation projects 

for the State of Michigan. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE FOR TRANSPOR4 TATION PROJECTS. 

5 In reposonse to the serious economic downturn in the 

6 State of Michigan, the Secretary of Transportation shall 

7 increase the Federal share to 100 percent for any project 

8 or program carried out under title 23, United States Code, 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3102 IH

1 or chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, for such 

2 State for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### In the Matter of the Guardianship of Gabrielle S. and Another, Infants. Ingrid S., Appellant; St. Christopher-Ottilie, Respondent.

[664 NYS2d 788]

—Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about October 11, 1995, terminating respondent’s parental rights to the subject children upon a finding of mental illness, and committing their custody to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the termination of respondent’s parental rights with respect to Vernon S., and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The finding of mental illness within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (c) is supported by clear and convincing evidence, including unchallenged and unequivocal expert testimony of respondent’s recurring cycle of psychiatric hospitalizations and drug abuse, her marginal functional existence throughout her adult life, a poor prognosis *(see, Matter of Christine Marie R.,*236 AD2d 308; *Matter of Luisa Lara M.,*236 AD2d 267), and the special needs of the children. However, in view of respondent’s and the older child’s desire for continued contact and the Law Guardian’s opposition to the termination of parental rights with regard to that child, among other factors, it has not been shown that termination of the respondent natural mother’s parental rights is in this child’s best interests. The older child should remain in the custody of the *25Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Colabella, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Lee A. Goldberg, Respondent, v Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP et al., Appellants.

[860 NYS2d 931]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered October 17, 2007, which granted the petition to confirm an arbitration award and awarded petitioner the principal amount of $453,468.62, plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitration award was properly confirmed as it did not violate a strong public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator’s authority *(see Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn.,*78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]; CPLR 7511 [b]). Indeed, the arbitrator offered a well-reasoned justification for his interpretation of the parties’ agreement, and there exists no basis for vacatur thereof *(see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York,*94 NY2d 321, 326 [1999]). As for the award of counsel fees to petitioner, it was respondents that first sought such fees in their counterclaim, and mutual demands for counsel fees in an arbitration proceeding consti*393tute, in effect, an agreement to submit the issue to arbitration, with the resultant award being valid and enforceable *(see Matter of Warner Bros. Records [PPX Enters.],*7 AD3d 330 [2004]; *compare Matter of Matza v Oshman, Helfenstein & Matza,*33 AD3d 493, 494-495 [2006]). While respondents may have attempted to withdraw the request for attorneys’ fees in connection with their counterclaim, there was no such attempt in connection with their defense of the arbitration proceeding. Concur—Lippman, RJ., Tom, Gonzalez, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 3.4
                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          PURE TECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                  Pure Tech International, Inc. , a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST: That pursuant to the recommendation of the Board of Directors of
PureTech International, Inc., the following resolution amending the Certificate
of Incorporation of said corporation, has been adopted by the vote of
stockholders of said corporation holding majority of the outstanding stock
entitled to vote thereon. The resolution setting forth the amendment is as
follows:

         RESOLVED, that Paragraph First of the Certificate of Incorporation
shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                  "The name of the Corporation is PureTec Corporation, a
                  corporation formed in accordance with the General Corporation
                  Law of Delaware."

         SECOND: That these resolutions have been adopted by the vote of
stockholders holding a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote hereon
in accordance with Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

         THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

         FOURTH: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under
or by reason of said amendment.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Pure Tech International, Inc. has caused this
certificate to be signed by its President, and its Secretary, this 1st day of
May, 1996.

                            Pure Tech International, Inc.

                            By: /s/ David C. Katz
                                ------------------------
                                David C. Katz, President

ATTEST:

  /s/ Paul Litwinczuk
--------------------------
Paul Litwinczuk, Secretary