alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert A. ZANDER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-6016.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2007.

Decided: March 30, 2007.

Robert A. Zander, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert A. Zander seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). *343We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Zander has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Zander’s motion for an expedited hearing, 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.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4043]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

ACTION:  Meeting date change.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Chemical Warfare 
Defense closed meeting scheduled for March 27, 2001, has been changed 
to March 26, 2001. The meeting will be held at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax 
Drive, Arlington, VA.

    Dated: February 12, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-4043 Filed 2-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan CORRALEJO-MONTOYA, also known as Omar Antonio Corralejo-Montoya, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-51059

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 7, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

*383PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Corralejo-Montoya raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 4.87


 









	 	
        Brooge Petroleum and Gas Investment Company FZE (“BPGIC”)

        PO Box 50170

        Fujairah

        United Arab Emirates



 


	April 2020
	 
	
        

        Al Brooge International Advisory LLC (“BIA”)

        PO Box 29939

        Abu Dhabi

        United Arab Emirates






 


Refinery
Agreement


 


Dear Sirs


 


We refer
to the refinery agreement executed by BIA and BPGIC and dated 23 February 2020 (the “Refinery Agreement”) pursuant
to which BIA and BPGIC agreed finalise the terms of a joint venture with regard to the Project (as defined in the Refinery Agreement)
within 30 working days.


 


In
light of ongoing discussions regarding the Project, BIA and BPGIC have mutually agreed to extend the deadline for the negotiation
and execution of the final terms of the sublease and the commercial aspects of the joint venture in respect of the Project through
to Thursday 4 June 2020.


 


The
provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Refinery Agreement shall have effect in relation to this letter agreement as if set out herein
in full.


 


In witness whereof the parties
have caused this letter agreement to be executed on the date first above mentioned.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     95,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,019
<PP&E>                                          11,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,687
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,095
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (63,928)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (38,928)
<SALES>                                        516,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               516,143
<CGS>                                           70,124
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  446,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,926)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,926)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6889

DONNIE RAY WINSTON, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. JOHN NEIL VAUGHAN, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00080-GCM)

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnie Ray Winston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donnie Ray Winston 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Winston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   44,698,200
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       7,485,163
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     4,221,128
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              56,404,491
<COMMON>                                        10,744
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                   17,194,475
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          3,817,920
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>              19,604,377
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         8,620,999
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                           2,965,500
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                    5,177,000
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                2,636,613
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                  2,795,821
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                73,159
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>              14,531,022
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               56,404,491
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   27,770,257
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           869,800
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  23,724,622
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  24,594,422
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                      3,175,835
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            (55,174)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               3,120,661
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,125,201
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,995,460
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                1,995,460
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     1,217,881
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      850,565
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       3,530,670
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.8


 


Kubient,Inc.


Amendment
to Employment Agreement


 


This
Amendment to the employment agreement between Paul Roberts (“Executive”) and Kubient, Inc. (the “Company”)
(together referred to herein as the “Parties”) is entered into effective October 2, 2019.


 


RECITALS:


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties entered into an agreement for the employment of the Executive by the Company on May 26, 2017 (the “Agreement”)
in which Executive serves the Company as its Chief Executive Officer;


 


WHEREAS,
the Company has employed additional officers in senior management roles, including a new Chief Executive Officer, and the
parties desire to modify the Executive’s position to be the President and Chief Strategy Officer of the Company;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Section 1(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:


 


(b)        
Position and Duties. Effective on the Effective Date, Executive: (i) shall resign his position as Chief Executive Officer
of the Company and serve as the President and Chief Strategy Officer of the Company, with responsibilities, duties and authority
usual and customary for such position, subject to direction by the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”);
(ii) shall report directly to the Board; and (iii) agrees promptly and faithfully to comply with all present and future policies,
requirements, directions, requests and rules and regulations of the Company in connection with the Company’s business. In addition,
the Board or a nominating committee of the Board shall nominate Executive to serve as a member of the Board. As a member of the
Board, Executive shall attend each regular meeting of the Board, and such other meetings for which there is reasonable prior notice,
in person except as may be otherwise agreed by the Board prior to such meeting.


 


In
Witness Whereof, the Parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement on this 2nd day of October,
2019.


 


 


	 	 	KUBIENT, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Peter Bordes
	 	 	Peter Bordes, Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Paul Roberts
	 	 	Paul Roberts




 






    	 	1
In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00049-CV

IN RE TEXAS REGIONAL CLINIC AND MEMORIAL MRI & DIAGNOSTIC

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Texas Regional Clinic and Memorial MRI & Diagnostic, filed a petition for a 

writ of mandamus requesting this Court to vacate a discovery order dated May 2, 2024, entered 

by the trial court in Panola County. Because Relators failed to certify the petition in accordance 

with Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny the mandamus petition. 

“Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of

discretion . . . , and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law.” In re Blakeney, 254 

S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (citing Cantu v. Longoria, 878 

S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 

1992) (orig. proceeding)). “It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient

record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief.” Id. (citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839–

40; In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. 

proceeding)); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7(a). 

Rule 52.3 provides, “The person filing the petition must certify that he or she has 

reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by 

competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). We have 

reviewed the Relators’ petition and find there is no certification complying with Rule 52.3(j). 

“‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must 

‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the 

mandamus record.’” In re Porter, No. 06-21-00054-CV, 2021 WL 2425251, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana June 15, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (alteration in original) (quoting In re 
3

Morehead, No. 06-21-00025-CV, 2021 WL 1652064, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 28, 

2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)). When a relator does not comply with the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, we deny its petition. See id. at *2.

Because Relators did not comply with Rule 52.3(j), we deny the petition for a writ of 

mandamus as well as the motion for emergency relief.

Jeff Rambin 

Justice

Date Submitted: May 9, 2024

Date Decided: May 9, 2024
Exhibit 31.1



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Howard W. Sharp, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BSB Bancorp, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 we 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 quarterly 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;



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 (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 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 controls over financial reporting.



|                        |  |                    
|----------------------- |  | -------------------
|Date: May 10, 2004     
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ Howard W. Sharp
|                        |  |                    
|Howard W. Sharp        
|President and          
|Chief Executive Officer



32
House Calendar No. 80

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2431

[Report No. 103–227]

A BILL

To designate the Federal building in Jacksonville,

Building’’.Florida, as the ‘‘Charles E. Bennett Federal

SEPTEMBER 9, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IB

House Calendar No. 80

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2431

[Report No. 103–227]

To designate the Federal building in Jacksonville, Florida, as the ‘‘Charles

E. Bennett Federal Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 16, 1993

Ms. BROWN of Florida (for herself, Mr. MINETA, and Mr. TRAFICANT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public

Works and Transportation

SEPTEMBER 9, 1993

Additional sponsors: Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BACCHUS of Florida, Mr. HAMILTON,

Mr. MICA, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. PRICE of North

Carolina, Mrs. MEEK, Mr. GORDON, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr.

LAFALCE, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. WOLF, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MILLER of

Florida, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr.

DARDEN, Mr. FROST, Mr. HUGHES, Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida, Mr.

SHAW, Mr. LEWIS of Florida, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. HASTINGS, and Mr.

LANCASTER

SEPTEMBER 9, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To designate the Federal building in Jacksonville, Florida,

as the ‘‘Charles E. Bennett Federal Building’’.
2

•HR 2431 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building at 400 Bay Street in Jackson5 ville, Florida, is designated as the ‘‘Charles E. Bennett

6 Federal Building’’. If a new Federal building is built in

7 Jacksonville, Florida, to replace the building at 400 Bay

8 Street, the new Federal building shall be designated as

9 the ‘‘Charles E. Bennett Federal Building’’.

10 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

11 Any reference in any law, regulation, document,

12 record, map, or other paper of the United States to the

13 Federal building referred to in section 1 is deemed to be

14 a reference to the ‘‘Charles E. Bennett Federal Building’’.
##### 



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 Pioneer Companies, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael Y. McGovern, President and Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the
Company. Date: November 1, 2004
    /s/ Michael Y. McGovernMichael Y. McGovernPresident and Chief Executive Officer