alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7055

ERIC L. GREEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WILCOX, Staff Member at Alexander Correction; STEERTS, Sgt. Unit Supervision at Alexander Correction; POTEAT, Unit Manager for Alexander Correction; POWELL, Asst. Unit Manager at Alexander Correction; WELCH, Sgt. for Unit at Alexander Correction; BELL, Officer for Alexander Correction; CLAWSON, Officer for Alexander Correction; WOOD, Nurse for Alexander Correction; MIT ONEN, Kitchen Supervisor at Alexander Correction; HAMILTON, Kitchen Supervisor at Alexander Correction; JOHN DOE, 1

- 2 , Defendants

- Appellees , and ERIC DYE, Asst

. Warden; GAMEWELL, Staff Member at Alexander Correction,
Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 5:17

- cv
- 00103

- FDW )

Submitted : December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.2 Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Eric L. Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Eric L. Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claim and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims

. We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal peri od under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 25, 2019. The notice of appeal was filed on July 1 6 , 2019

. ∗ Because Green failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appea l. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
DISMISSED

∗ For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 27 6 (1988).
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RBC Life Sciences, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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
function):
 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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Steven E. BrownSteven E. BrownVice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                EXHIBIT NO. 23.1





                              CONSENT OF KPMG LLP



Board of Directors
Atlantic Premium Brands, Ltd.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-80010 and 333-39561) on Form S-8 of Atlantic Premium Brands, Ltd. of our
report dated March 26, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of
Atlantic Premium Brands, Ltd. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual
report on Form 10-K of Atlantic Premium Brands, Ltd.

                                   /s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 1999
Exhibit 32.2





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


AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Scott Gomez, Chief Accounting Officer of Hollywood Media Corp. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: April 14, 2011
By:
/s/ Scott GomezScott Gomez, Chief Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11603-11604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4656]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 01-029]


NASA Advisory Council, Space Flight Advisory Committee (SFAC); 
Meeting

AGENCY:  National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION:  Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY:  In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. 
L. 92-463, as amended, the National

[[Page 11604]]

Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA 
Advisory Council, Space Flight Advisory Committee.

DATES:  Tuesday, March 13, 2001 from 1:00 p.m. until 2:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street, 
SW., Room MIC 7A, Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Y. Edgington (Stacey), Code 
M, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 
202/358-4519.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
    <bullet> Shuttle upgrades status.
    It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors 
will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

    Dated: February 21, 2001.
Beth M. McCormick,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-4656 Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-U
#### QI FENG WENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-1088-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 7, 2011.

Peter L. Quan, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Ethan B. Kanter, Senior Litigation Counsel; John M. McAdams, Jr., Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Qi Feng Weng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”), *507seeks review of a March 15, 2010, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. *In re Qi Feng Weng,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 15, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *Ali v. Gonzales,*448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s evaluation of country conditions evidence submitted with a motion to reopen. *Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,*546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008).

It is beyond dispute that Weng’s motion to reopen was untimely, as it was filed almost six years after the agency’s order of removal became final. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although this time limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen asylum proceedings that is “based on changed circumstances ai'ising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h), the BIA reasonably determined that Weng failed to demonstrate changed conditions in China.

Contrary to Weng’s argument, there is no indication that the BIA ignored any evidence he submitted. *See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*471 F.3d 315, 337 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006). In fact, the BIA explicitly referred to Weng’s evidence in its decision.

As for the finding on country conditions, the BIA agreed with Weng that Falun Gong practitioners in China endure “severe repression.” However, based on the materials in evidence, the BIA reasonably found that this repression has existed since Falun Gong was outlawed in China in 1999, and has not changed since Weng’s order of removal became final in 2004. Thus, the BIA reasonably found that Weng had failed to demonstrate changed country conditions as required to overcome the time limitation on motions to reopen. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
**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**

| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, 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:                March 26, 2008  | /s/              Warren G. Lichtenstein                                                                                                          |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      | Warren                G. LichtensteinChairman,                President, and Chief Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer) |

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7067
In Re: JOHNNIE LEE JUSTICE,

Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:06-cv-00067-LMB-lo) Submitted: August 31, 2006 D ecided: September 8, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnnie Lee Justice, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Johnnie Lee Justice petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court to grant his motion for a certificate of appealability. We conclude that Justice is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The relief sought by Justice is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
July
12, 2020


Dear
Clinigence Holdings, Inc. Board of Directors


 


As
per our agreement today, please accept this letter as formal notification that I am resigning from my position as Chief Executive
Officer of Clinigence Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) effective today.


 


After
more than a decade of taking Clinigence from a sketch of an idea on a pizza box to a public company leading the healthcare market
through the turbulent waters of resource and value optimization, it is time for me to start a new chapter.


 


I
am grateful to our Chairman, Dr. Warren Hosseinion for helping us navigate our way to the public markets over the past two years.
I have learned a great deal from him and from each and every one of you.


 


I
trust that you, along with my esteemed colleague, co-founder of Qualmetrix, and successor as CEO – Dr. Larry Schimmel -
will continue leading Clinigence into more growth and success in the coming years.


 


You
may be losing me as CEO, but I will continue to offer guidance and assistance to you as a member of the board of directors.


 


Sincerely,







Jacob
“Kobi” Margolin
<PAGE>
                                  [Letterhead]
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.57
 
January 16, 1997
 
Mr. J.W.A. Buyers
 
Chairman of the Board
 
C. Brewer Homes, Inc.
 
P.O. Box 1826
 
Honolulu, Hawaii 96806
 
Re: Terms of Employment
 
Dear Doc:
 
    Attached is the original copy of your letter dated January 7, 1997 regarding
the offer of employment and terms of employment. I have signed the letter
indicating my acceptance of the offer and agreement to the terms of employment.
 
    Since I accepted the offer last week via facsimile and expressed my
sentiments then, I will not repeat my thoughts other than to say I will do my
best to ensure that your confidence in me is rewarded.
 
    Since you wrote the letter, we agreed to change the starting date of
employment from January 20 to January 27, 1997. To be consistent and avoid
confusion I think we should also change the terms of employment that refer to or
are based on the starting date. I suggest the following:
 
       Paragraph 1--move the date of the planned salary increase from July 20 to
       July 27, 1997.
 
       Paragraph 3--move the date of the initial grant of stock option from the
       close of business on January 20 to the close of business on January 27,
       1997.
 
       Paragraph 6--move the eligibility date for four weeks of vacation from
       January 20 to January 27, 1998.
 
       Paragraph 8--move the date of payment of the transition allowance from
       January 20 to January 27, 1997.
 
    All the other terms and provisions of your letter dated January 7, 1997
would remain the same.
 
    I think that this should be sufficient. If you agree, please sign below and
send me a copy for my files.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Sincerely,                             Agreed to by:
 
<S>                                    <C>
/S/ SETH A. BAKES                      /S/ J.W.A. BUYERS
------------------------               ------------------------
Seth A. Bakes                          J.W.A. Buyers
</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**Certification
      pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





I,
      Louis
      D. Paolino, Jr., the Principal Executive Officer of Mace Security International,
      Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002,
      that the Form 10-K of Mace Security International, Inc. for the year ended
      December 31, 2006 (the “December 31, 2006 Form 10-K”), which this certification
      accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information
      contained in the December 31, 2006 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mace Security
      International, Inc.





Dated:
                July 2, 2007/s/
                Louis D. Paolino, Jr.Louis
                D. Paolino, Jr.




*
      A
      signed original of this written statement as required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished
      to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11
                                                                      ----------

                                BROOKSTONE, INC.

            COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS)
                                PER COMMON SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                              Thirteen Weeks Ended
                                                           ----------------------------
                                                           May 3, 1997      May 4, 1996
                                                           -----------      -----------
<S>                                                        <C>              <C> 
Net loss                                                    $ (3,773)        $ (3,506)
                                                           ===========      ===========
Weighted average number of common shares                                 
  outstanding                                                  7,775            7,681
                                                                         
Adjustments to weighted average common                                   
  shares outstanding:                                                    
Common stock issued upon exercise of options                       8              28
                                                           -----------      -----------
Weighted average number of common shares as                              
  adjusted                                                     7,783           7,709
                                                           ===========      ===========
                                                                         
Net loss primary and fully diluted earnings                          
  per share                                                    $ (0.48)        $ (0.45)
                                                           ===========      ===========
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**906 CERTIFICATION**

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

Ignacio Antoñanzas A., the Chief Executive Officer and Alfredo Ergas S., the Chief Financial Officer of ENERSIS S.A., each certifies that, to the best of their knowledge:

 

1.                the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.               the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Enersis.

 
| Date: April 4, 2012. |                             |
|----------------------|----------------------------------|
|                 |                             |
|                 |                             |
|                 | /s/   Ignacio Antoñanzas A. |
|                 | Name: Ignacio Antoñanzas A. |
|                 | Chief   Executive Officer        |
|                 |                             |
|                 |                             |
|                 | /s/   Alfredo Ergas S.           |
|                 | Name:   Alfredo Ergas S.         |
|                 | Chief   Financial Officer        |

 

----