alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 24, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER R. SALEH,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 10-1099

v. (D. Colorado)

GEORGE DUNBAR; THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-02070-ZLW)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

This is a pro se appeal from the denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 relief. The

petitioner was convicted in Colorado state court, following a jury trial, of seconddegree assault and was sentenced to thirty-two years’ imprisonment as a habitual

offender. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, People v. Saleh, 25 P.3d 1248

(Colo. Ct. App. 2000), but the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the Court of

Appeals and reinstated the conviction, People v. Saleh, 45 P.3d 1272 (Colo.
-2-

2002). Petitioner did not seek review in the United States Supreme Court. A

subsequent state motion for post-judgment relief was filed on February 16, 2005,

and was denied on appeal on December 18, 2008.

In his § 2254 petition, the petitioner alleged that he was denied his right to

due process by the Colorado Supreme Court in his direct criminal appeal

proceedings, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that trial

counsel was ineffective, and that his Sixth Amendment rights were denied when

he was denied counsel at sentencing. The district court denied the petition

because it was untimely. The court concluded that the state post-conviction

proceedings did not toll the time to file the § 2254 petition. 

The district court also denied the petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability and application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The

petitioner now requests a certificate of appealability and permission to proceed ifp

from this court.

After reviewing the petitioner’s filings on appeal and the trial court’s

thorough and extensive order, we conclude that the petitioner has not shown that

reasonable jurists would debate whether the district court was correct in denying

the petition as untimely. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 
-3-

We therefore DENY the application for a certificate of appealability and

DISMISS this appeal. The application to proceed ifp is also DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                                 UNI-MARTS INC.

                            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 Annual Report of Uni-Marts Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, N. Gregory Petrick,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

                                            /s/ N. Gregory Petrick
Date:   December 20, 2002                   ____________________________________
                                            N. Gregory Petrick
                                            Executive Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          32,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,326,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,326,200
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (338,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (338,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (338,600)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel BELTRAN-BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-30448.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 19, 2010.

Kirk Alan Engdall, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bryan E. Lessley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joel Beltran-Benitez appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Beltran-Benitez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence imposed. He also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and the below-Guidelines range sentence is substantively reasonable. *See United States v. Carter,*560 F.3d 1107, 1117-19 (9th Cir.2009) (no procedural error where record reflected that judge considered the evidence and arguments presented by the parties); *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<Table>
<Caption>

           SUBSIDIARY                                   STATE OF INCORPORATION
           ----------                                   ----------------------
<S>                                                    <C>
Amite Foundry and Machine, Inc.                               Louisiana

Prospect Foundry, Inc.                                        Minnesota

Quaker Alloy, Inc.                                            Pennsylvania

Canadian Steel Foundries Ltd.                                 Quebec, Canada

Kramer International, Inc.                                    Wisconsin

Empire Steel Castings, Inc.                                   Pennsylvania

La Grange Foundry Inc.                                        Missouri

The G&C Foundry Company                                       Ohio

Los Angeles Die Casting Inc.                                  California

Canada Alloy Castings, Ltd.                                   Ontario, Canada

Pennsylvania Steel Foundry &                                  Pennsylvania
 Machine Company

Jahn Foundry Corp.                                            Massachusetts

Inverness Castings Group, Inc.                                Delaware

Atchison Casting UK Limited                                   England

Sheffield Forgemasters Group, Ltd.                            England

Sheffield Forgemasters Engineering Ltd.                       England

Sheffield Forgemasters Rolls Ltd.                             England

Claremont Foundry, Inc.                                       Delaware

London Precision Machine & Tool Ltd.                          Ontario, Canada

Foundrie d'Autun                                              Autun, France
</Table>
exv10w12



 







Exhibit 10.12




[NEW CENTURY LETTERHEAD]




July ___, 2006




[Name]

[Address]




          Re: Amendment of Director Stock Awards



Dear [First Name]:




     On June 29, 2006, our Board of Directors amended the stock option and restricted stock awards
previously granted by New Century to persons who, at the time of grant of the award, were not
employed by New Century (“Non-Employee Director Awards”). The amendment applies to all such awards
held by persons, like you, who were non-employee members of our Board of Directors on June 29,
2006.



     This letter confirms the amendment of your awards. Should a Change in Control Event (as such
term is defined in our 2004 Performance Incentive Plan) occur, then all Non-Employee Director
Awards granted to you on or before June 29, 2006 that are outstanding and not otherwise vested upon
(or, as may be necessary to effect such acceleration, immediately prior to) the Change in Control
Event shall thereupon become fully vested. The accelerated vesting provisions of future
Non-Employee Director Awards will be set forth in the applicable award agreements.



     Please call Jennifer Jewett at (949) 250-5177 if you have any question regarding these
changes.



	 	 	 
	 

	 	Regards,
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	Brad Morrice
	 

	 	Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0542 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ERIC JOE JAYNES,

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 January 29, 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2023

12/22/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0542
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 of NUECES COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 17th day of 

September, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

BONNIE DOWNS Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00358-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 13-714-4)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 17, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 1st day of December, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 February 1, 2017

p0125

Order 

Clerk

February 1, 2017

154566

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 154566

COA: 327208

Saginaw CC: 14-040317-FC

DEVAUN LAROY LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 18, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order 

addressing: (1) whether prior testimony is admissible under MRE 804(b)(1) where the 

proponent of the statement has caused the declarant to be unavailable under MRE 804(a), 

regardless of any intent by the proponent to cause unavailability; and, (2) if some form of 

intent is required, what standards should apply when determining whether the 

proponent’s actions were intended to cause the declarant to be unavailable. The parties 

should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 177

To require the Secretary of Education to waive certain regulations in considering an application submitted by the Winona R-III School District, Missouri.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. EMERSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Education to waive certain regulations in considering an application submitted by the

Winona R-III School District, Missouri.

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

3 In carrying out section 14(c) of Public Law 815, 81st

4 Congress (20 U.S.C. 644(c)), the Secretary of Education

5 shall waive any amount of local effort in excess of

6 $200,000 that would otherwise be required under sections

7 14(c)(3) and 14(c)(4), and any regulations issued there8 under, in awarding funds to the Winona R-III School Dis-
2

•HR 177 IH

1 trict, Missouri, with respect to its application # MO-86-

2 C-3601A36.

Æ
Exhibit 10.3


    
      
        

      

    

     

    Exhibig
      10.3

     

    AMENDMENT
      TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     

    THIS
      AMENDMENT
      (this
“Amendment”) is dated August 8, 2006, between THERAGENICS CORPORATION, a
      Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and M. CHRISTINE JACOBS, an individual
      resident of Georgia (the “Executive”).

     

    INTRODUCTION

     

    The
      Company and the Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated
      April 13, 2000 (the “Employment Agreement”). The parties hereto now desire to
      amend the Employment Agreement to delete the provision providing for perquisites
      up to $40,000 annually and agree that such deletion shall not allow the
      Executive to resign for “Good Reason.” 

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE,
      and in
      consideration of the Executive’s continued employment with the Company, the
      Company and the Executive hereby mutually agree that, effective immediately
      following the payment made to the Executive pursuant to Section 5(c) in March
      2006, the Employment Agreement is amended as follows:

     

    1. By
      deleting in its entirety the existing content of Section 5(c) and replacing
      therefor the term “[Reserved.]” 

     

    2. By
      adding
      the following language immediately before the period at the end of the first
      sentence of Section 17(s)(iii):

     

    “;
      provided, however, that the amendment to this Agreement to delete the $40,000
      benefit in Section 5(c) shall not be deemed to constitute ‘Good
      Reason’.”

     

    Except
      as
      specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
      force
      and effect as prior to this Amendment. 

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,
      the
      Company and the Executive have each executed and delivered this Amendment as
      of
      the date first shown above.

     

    
      	 THE COMPANY:	 	 THE
              EXECUTIVE:
	 	 	 
	 THERAGENICS CORPORATION	 	/s/ M. Christine
              Jacobs 
	 	 	M. Christine Jacobs
	 	 	 
	 By:
/s/
              Francis J. Tarallo	 	 
	 	 	 
	 Title: Chief
              Financial Officer and Treasurer
Annua

For Privacy Act and 

This certifies that

By 

has satisfied all U

tions with respect 

the tax year ende

determined to the 

available to me on 

OMB No. 1545-0138

Social security number or ITIN, if any

9 Original date of your entry into the U.S. 10 Date on which you last arrived in the U.S.

U.S. Departing Alien Income Tax Statement

For a Resident Alien Against Whom a Termination Assessment Has Not Been Made or

For a Nonresident Alien Having No Taxable Income From United States Sources Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service

3 Complete foreign address1 Name (please print or type)

8 Date of departure

2 U.S. address (number, street, and apt. no. or rural route)

Cat. No. 21420Y

Form 2063

(Rev. October 2002) 

11 Are you a resident alien

of the U.S.? Yes If “No,” enter the country of which you are a resident 

An employeeSelf-employed

City State and ZIP code

4 Tax year 5 While in the U.S., check if you were: 6 Of what country are you a citizen or subject? 7 Passport or alien registration

card number

No
Yes No

Date

(2) Taxable income (3) Tax paid (4) Balance due

b Was U.S. income tax withheld?b

c Did you make any estimated income tax payments?

If “Yes,” give the following information:

U.S. address shown on the income tax return you filed for that year:

If “Yes”:

(1) Year

Declaration. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined the above statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true,

correct, and complete.

c

13a Did you receive any income subject to U.S. income tax during the prior tax year?

12a Did you receive or do you expect to receive any income subject to U.S. income tax for the year shown on line 4

on the front of this form?

14 Are you liable for filing tax returns or paying taxes to the United States for any prior year not shown above?

Signature of departing alien

Yes NoYes NoYes NoYes No

Privacy Act and P

information on this 

United States. Intern

and their regulations 

of this information i

and criminal litigati

Columbia to carry ou

to Federal and state 

to combat terrorism

be charged penaltie

The time needed 

individual circumsta

7 min.; Learning ab

26 min.; Copying, 

min. If you have c

estimates or sugges

to hear from you. Y

Area Distribution Ce

the form to this add

You are not requ

that is subject to th

a valid OMB contro

instructions must b

material in the adm

returns and return in

6103.

 Sign Here
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Environmental Power Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2006 (the Report), I, Richard E. Kessel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/    Richard E. Kessel                 
|Richard E. Kessel Chief Executive Officer

March 30, 2007