alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Noel CORNELIO; et al., Petitioners, and Phoenix Processor Limited Partnership Inc, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 06-74745.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 11, 2008.

Filed May 1, 2008.

Bradley H. Bagshaw, Scott Edward Collins, David Carl Bratz, Gail M. Luhn, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

*609Jill A. Griffin, Jason Walta, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Twenty-three employees who worked as fish processors aboard the *S/S Ocean Phoenix*petition for review of a decision by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) concluding that, as seamen, petitioners were not entitled to engage in a shipboard work stoppage in defiance of the captain’s orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 160(f), and we deny the petition.

We are bound by *Southern Steamship Co. v. NLRB,*316 U.S. 31, 62 S.Ct. 886, 86 L.Ed. 1246 (1942). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Board lacked authority to order an award of reinstatement and backpay to seamen who engage in a strike or work stoppage. As the Court explained, “[w]e cannot ignore the fact that the strike was unlawful from its very inception. It directly contravened the policy of Congress.... Consequently, and despite the initial unfair labor practice which caused the strike, we hold that the reinstatement provisions of the order exceeded the Board’s authority....” *Id.*at 48, 62 S.Ct. 886.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasized that “[e]ver since men have gone to sea, the relationship of master to seaman has been entirely different from that of employer to employee on land. The lives of passengers and crew as well as the safety of ship and cargo are entrusted to the master’s care. Every one and every thing depend on him. He must command and the crew must obey. Authority cannot be divided.” *Id.*at 38, 62 S.Ct. 886. *Southern Steamship*leaves no room for an exception for at-will seamen whose function is that of fish processor.

Because petitioners do not challenge the Board’s finding that they are seamen, the Board properly relied on *Southern Steamship*in concluding that they were not entitled to engage in a work stoppage at sea in defiance of the captain’s orders. Contrary to petitioners’ argument that they did not disobey an order of the captain, the Board’s finding that they disobeyed his order to return to work is supported by substantial evidence. Under the circumstances, we are not free to decline to enforce the Board’s order or reverse its holding that petitioners were not entitled to engage in a shipboard work stoppage. We therefore deny the petition for review.

PETITION DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### John Patrick MCCLURE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. TUCKER; Millwee, Steve Krobowski, sued in his individual & official capacity; Johnson, sued in his/her individual & official capacity; Patricia Stapler, sued in her individual *&*official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-15377.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed April 30, 2008.

John Patrick McClure, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Susanna Carballo Pineda, Esq., AGAZOffice of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John Patrick McClure, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by *575acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs and inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Sanchez v. Vild,*891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on McClure’s deliberate indifference claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the treatment chosen by prison officials was medically unacceptable. *See id.*at 242 (holding that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on McClure’s claims regarding tuberculosis testing and food tampering because McClure did not offer evidence that prison officials poisoned him. Preventing disease and protecting the health of inmates are legitimate penological goals. *See, e.g., Thompson v. City of Los Angeles,*885 F.2d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1989).

McClure’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
---

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
  REQUIRED BY RULE
13A - 14(A) OR RULE 15D - 14(A)

I, Bob Bates, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inova
Technology Inc.

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)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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: September 19, 2011 | /s/
      Bob Bates    
|------------------------ | -----------------------
|                         | Chief Financial Officer

---
EX-10.1 AMENDMENT TO AMENDED EMPLOYEE STOCK PLAN



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

AMENDED AND RESTATED

UNITED COMMUNITY BANKS, INC.

2000 KEY EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN

(As Amended And Restated Effective As Of March 15, 2007)




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 is hereby made and entered into this 13th day of April, 2007,
by UNITED COMMUNITY BANKS, INC. (the “Company”), to be effective as of March 15, 2007.



     WHEREAS, effective March 15, 2007, the Company amended and restated the United Community
Banks, Inc. 2000 Key Employee Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), which Plan provides for grants of
stock options and other equity awards to employees who are responsible for the future growth and
continued success of the business; and



     WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend the Plan in the manner hereinafter provided;




     NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1.     The Plan is hereby amended by deleting the second sentence of Section 3.2 and substituting the
following in lieu thereof:




     “Notwithstanding any provision in this Plan to the contrary, except in
accordance with Section 4.3 or unless such an amendment is approved by the
shareholders of the Company, (i) no Option or SAR may be amended to reduce the price
per share of the Shares subject to such Option or the exercise price of such SAR as
applicable, below the option price or exercise price as of the date the Option or
SAR is granted, and (ii) no Option, SAR, Award or cash may be granted in exchange
for, or in connection with, the cancellation or surrender of an Option, SAR or other
Award if the new Option, SAR or other Award has an option or exercise price
(including no exercise price) which is less than the option or exercise price of the
Option, SAR or Award being exchanged, cancelled or surrendered. Subject to the
foregoing restrictions, the Committee shall, with the written consent of the
Participant holding such award, have the authority to cancel outstanding Awards and
grant replacement Awards therefor.”


2.     The Plan is hereby amended by deleting the second sentence of Section 14.:



3.     This Amendment No. 1 shall be effective as of March 15, 2007. Except as hereby modified, the
Plan shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the day and year first
written above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	UNITED COMMUNITY BANKS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Jimmy Tallent
 	 


	 	 	Name:  	Jimmy Tallent 	 



	 	 	Title:  	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 




1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LaBranche & Co Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George M.L. LaBranche, IV, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and to the best of my knowledge, 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 at the end of, and for, the period covered by the Report.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                |  |                                                
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ George M. L. LaBranche, IV
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                          |  | George M.L. LaBranche, IV                      
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                         |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LaBranche & Co Inc. and will be retained by
LaBranche & Co Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

Exhibit 21 

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES 

|                                             |                   |      |
|--------------------------------------------------|------------------------|-----------|
| **Name of Subsidiary**                           | **Jurisdiction of**    | **%**     |
|                                             | **Organization**       | **Owned** |
| Media Challenge Holdings Limited                 | British Virgin Islands | 100%      |
| Shenzhen New Media Consulting Co., Ltd.          | China                  | 100%      |
| Shenzhen Media Investment Co., Ltd.              | China                  | 100%      |
| Shenzhen New Media Advertising Company Ltd.      | China                  | 100%      |
| Shenzhen Caina Brand Consultant Company          | China                  | 100%      |
| Beijing Media Management Consultation****Company | China                  | 100%      |
| Shenzhen Keungxi Technology Company Ltd.         | China                  | 48%       |

----
#### David M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLAS COPCO TOOLS & ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS, INC., DefendantAppellee.

Nos. 06-2560, 06-2638, 07-1043.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 9, 2008.

BEFORE: GUY, SUHRHEINRICH, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant David M. Johnson filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that Defendant-Appellee Atlas Copco Tools & Assembly Systems, Inc. impermissibly terminated his employment based on Johnson’s age and national origin, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621*et seq.,*and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101, *et seq.*The district court granted Atlas’s motion for summary judgment and found that Johnson had not sufficiently rebutted the legitimate business rationale for Johnson’s termination. Upon de novo review of the district court’s grant of summary judg*489ment, *Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts,*448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir.2006), and following oral argument, we are of the view that the district court has thoroughly and comprehensively articulated the reasoning and analysis supporting summary judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the issuance of a detailed written opinion by us would be unnecessarily duplicative and the judgment rendered by the Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds on October 16, 2006, is therefore affirmed on the basis of the reasoning set forth in her Opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0 302 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRANDON JAMES LEWIS TOLLIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 14 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 7 2021

05/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0302
| 1.     | Such      Yearly Report of Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007,      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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year      ended December 31, 2007, fairly represents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of HSM Holdings,      Inc. |

| Date:       July 25, 2008                   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |
| HSM      Holdings, Inc.                          |
|                                             |
| By: /s/      Simone Crighton                |
| Simone      CrightonChief      Financial Officer |
#### Harold Ray ESTES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Butch Aroni JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6450.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 29, 2010.

Harold Ray Estes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harold Ray Estes 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 appeal-ability. *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 *792district 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 Estes 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3314 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to assist States with a high 

unemployment rate under the equity bonus program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2009 

Mr. SCHAUER (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. PETERS, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. KILDEE, and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to assist States 

with a high unemployment rate under the equity bonus 

program, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EQUITY BONUS PROGRAM. 

4 (a) STATE PERCENTAGE.—With respect to an eligible 

5 State during fiscal years 2010 through 2015, section 

6 105(b)(1)(A) of title 23, United States Code, shall be ap7 plied by substituting ‘‘105 percent’’ for ‘‘92 percent’’. 

8 (b) ELIGIBLE STATE DEFINED.—In this Act, the 

9 term ‘‘eligible State’’ means a State with an unemployVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:14 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3314.IH H3314

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3314 IH

1 ment rate, as determined by the Secretary of Transpor2 tation, equal to or exceeding 12 percent at any time during 

3 fiscal year 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Certification



I, Brett C. Brewer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of eUniverse Inc.;



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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant and have:



( a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to
be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this
report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors:



a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and



b) Any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: October 30, 2003 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Brett C. Brewer
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------
|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                    
|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                    
|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                    



28
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 11, 2024

NO. 03-24-00451-CR

Warren Duray Joiner, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Appellant has filed a 

motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the motion, allows appellant to withdraw 

his notice of appeal, and dismisses the appeal. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.