alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that t his o pinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

February 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60669

Summary Calendar

DAO HUA LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A16 057 494

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dao Hua Lin, a native and citizen of People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an

order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision

to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality

Act, withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure.

The IJ determined, among other things, that Li n’s testimony was not credible. The BIA affirmed,

concluding that the IJ’s credibility finding was not clearly erroneous.No. 04-60669

-2-

Lin argues that the adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Lin

further contends that any incon sistencies in his testimony or application should not have been

considered by the IJ because they concerned minor events that were not central to his claim that his

wife’s sterilization constituted past persecution. Lin also contests the IJ’s determination that Lin’s

failure to provide the Government with the documents he planned to introduce into evidence before

the day of the hearing weighed against his credibility and resulted in the documents being given “little

weight.” The IJ provided many cogent reasons for finding t hat Lin was not credible, and those

reasons were amply supported by the record. S ee Chun v. INS

, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). The

record thus does not compel a contrary credibility determination. See Lopez De Jesus v. INS , 312

F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 2002).

Lin also contests the IJ’s conclusions that Lin (1) came to the United States for monetary

gain, (2) might have resettled in Korea, (3) did not show that he wished to have another child, and

(4) did not prove that there was country-wide persecution. However, because these determinations

concerning Lin’s eligibilit

y for relief did not impact the IJ’s credibility determination, and because the

IJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial ev idence, we need not address them.

Lin does not challenge the determination that his asylum application was unt imely, but even

if he did, we lack jurisdiction to review that determination. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)

, (3). Lin also

does not appeal the denial of relief under the CAT or the denial of voluntary departure. Therefore,

those issues are waived. See Thuri v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).

Lin’s petition for review of the BIA’s order is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT ALTON HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers,

District Judge. (CR-03-18)

Submitted: July 9, 2004 Decided: July 30, 2004

Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew J. Katz, THE KATZ WORKING FAMILIES LAW FIRM, L.C.,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United

States Attorney, Stephanie L. Haines, Assistant United States

Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Vacated by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Alton Harris appeals his sentence, following a

guilty plea to transmitting a threatening communication, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876 (2000). The district court sentenced

Harris to forty-one months of imprisonment, to be followed by a

three-year term of supervised release. Harris contends that the

district court clearly erred in denying his request for a downward

sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2003). Harris also

requests a remand to the district court for a new sentencing

hearing based on a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83

(1963). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

A district court’s determination as to the defendant’s

acceptance of responsibility is a factual question reviewed for

clear error. United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir.

1999). The burden is on the defendant to establish by a

preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the

adjustment. United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, 1238-

39 (4th Cir. 1989). A guilty plea does not automatically entitle

a defendant to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See

USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). A defendant may not be entitled to

a sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility if the

defendant engages in conduct inconsistent with acceptance of

responsibility. Id. Although Harris admitted that he sent a
- 3 -

threatening communication to his wife, two witnesses testified that

Harris made additional threats against his wife and others involved

in his case even after he pled guilty. Thus, the district court

did not clearly err in concluding that Harris’s conduct after he

pled guilty was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.

Further, because we find no Brady violation, we decline Harris’s

request to remand the case to the district court. 

Accordingly, we affirm Harris’s sentence. 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
#### § 1770.27 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Borrower* is an RUS telecommunications borrower.

*Cushion of Credit Account* is a 5 percent interest bearing account established by RUS in which all voluntary payments or overpayments on Rural Electric and Telephone Revolving Funds after October 1, 1987, are deposited.

*FCC* is the Federal Communications Commission.

*Part 32* is 47 CFR part 32, Uniform System of Accounts, issued by the Federal Communications Commission.

*RAO* is the Responsible Accounting Officer of the Federal Communications Commission.

*RE Act* is the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.*).

*RETRF* is the Rural Electric and Telephone Revolving Fund.

*RTB* is the Rural Telephone Bank.

*RUS* is the Rural Utilities Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, or its predecessor or successor.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Candela Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-18932, 33-29291, 33-35091,
33-37696, 33-37697, 33-37698, 33-55596, and 33-73040) of Candela Corporation of
our report dated August 23, 1999 relating to the financial statements, which
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
October 1, 1999
EXHIBIT 23 (a)
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
[letterhead of Coopers & Lybrand]

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the use of our report dated January 28, 1997 with 
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Fahnestock Viner 
Holdings Inc. for the years ended December 31, 1996 and 1995 and 
the consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and retained 
earnings for each of the years in the three year period ended 
December 31, 1996 included in the 1996 Annual Report (Form 10-K).

/s/Coopers & Lybrand
Chartered Accountants

Toronto, Canada
March 11, 1997
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00239-CR

Domingo Perez III

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

Trial Cause No. S-11-3164CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 5, 2018
#### SCHIEFER et al. v. NEW YORK & H. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Ernst Schiefer and another against the New York & Harlem Bailroad Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1940

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1940.561-1940.562 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1962

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1962 appear at 80 FR 9902, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1962.20-1952.25 [Reserved]
#### Walker *v.*The State.

*Indictment for an Assault and Battery with a Weapon.*

I. *Assault and battery; what is a fatal variance.*— Where an indictment charges an assault'and battery “with a weapon, to-wit, a gun,” and the evidence shows that the offense was committed without a weapon, as with the hand or fist, this is a fatal variance.

Appeal from Macon Circuit Court.

Tried before Hon. James E. Cobb.

The defendant in the lower court, appellant here, was indicted for an assault and battery “ with a weapon, to-wit, a gun ; ” and was convicted of an assault. The evidence for the State tended to show that the defendant was guilty of an assault and battery on the prosecutrix, but failed to' show whether or not a weapon was used. The defendant made a statement under the statute, which tended to show that at the time of the alleged difficulty he had a gun, but that lie did not strike the prosecutrix with it, or attempt to use it. The court charged the'jury, among other things, that they “ might find the defendant guilty of an assault with a weapon, or of an assault and battery, or of an assault, as they might determine from the evidence.” To this charge the defendant excepted; and it is here assigned as error.

W. C. Brewer, and Waits *&*Sons, for appellant.

II. C. Tompkins, Attorney-General, for the State.

SOMERVILLE, J.

— The indictment charges the defendant with- having assaulted and beat the prosecutrix “ with a *weapon,*to-wit, a gun.”

The rule is, that *the 'mode*of committing an offense must generally be proved as laid in the indictment, as least in substance. — Boscoe’s Cr. Ev. * 89-90. This principle embraces the *instrument*through the agency of which the crime is perpetrated. The evidence must show it to be of the same substantial nature with the description given. Precise conformity in every *18particular is never demanded, but it must be shown to correspond in general character and operation with the averments' of the indictment. Such matters of description, even though alleged with unnecessary particularity, often become essential to the fact of identity. — Whart.-on Or. Ev. (8th Ed.) 91-92; 1 Greenl. on Ev. § 65.

It is clear that if an indictment charges an assault and battery *with a 'weapon,*as is the case here, and the evidence shows that the offense was committed *without a weapon,*as with the hand or fist-, there is a fatal variance. The charge of the court was erroneous in refusing to recognize this *principle.-*— Johnson *v. The State,*35 Ala. 363; 1 Bish. on Or. Proc. §§ 485-486; *Rodgers' case;*50 Ala. 102 ; 1 East. P. C. 341; *Filkins v. People, 69*N. Y. 101, (S. C. 25 Amer. Rep. 143); Whart on Cr. Ev. §§ 91-92; 1 Greenl. on Ev. § 65.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Albert E. Lehmann, Respondent, v. Yetteve L. MacFarland, Defendant, and Maurice Freedman, Appellant.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that issues of fact are present requiring a trial. Respondent brought the instant action against one Yetteve MacFarland and appellant for breach of a contract between respondent and MacFarland under which respondent had the right to extract fill from certain land, the legal title to which was in MacFarland, at five cents per cubic yard “for such length of time as a certain Interstate Route and/or South Albany Arterial Highway shall be under construction.” Appellant urges that there is no legal basis for his being brought into the lawsuit since he was not a party to the contract nor was he the record owner of the property involved and respondent concedes this despite an averment in the complaint that he was an owner of the property. Instead he urges that appellant is liable as the result of some sort of legal relationship between appellant and MacFarland. This may well prove true, but it was incumbent upon respondent to allege the nature of this relationship and how appellant, because of the relationship, would be liable under the unambiguous contract *(Powers*v. *886
      *Murray,*6 A D 2d 828). There is no allegation in the complaint that appellant is an undisclosed principal or “beneficial” owner, the assertion being only that he is an owner, and in his amended bill of particulars respondent specifically asserts that he “ does not claim that the agreement mentioned in the complaint was executed by the defendant, Yetteve MaeFarland, as agent for the defendant, Maurice Freedman.” Thus we can find presently advanced no legal theory which would sustain appellant’s inclusion as a defendant in the lawsuit. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss should have been granted but respondent, if he is so advised, should have an opportunity to serve a new complaint. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and complaint against appellant dismissed with leave to respondent, if so advised, to serve a new complaint, with costs to appellant. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
Exhibit 10.(cc)


Compensation Policy Applicable to the


 


Board of Directors of DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


 


Directors who are employees of the DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”)
receive no cash compensation for their services as directors or as members of
committees.  Outside directors receive
$25,000 per year, as annual compensation, regardless of the number of Board or
Committee meetings they attend. 
Directors serving on the Audit Committee receive an additional $5,000
per year; however, the Chairman of the Audit Committee receives a total of an
additional $10,000 per year.  The Lead
Director receives an additional $5,000 per year.  Also, directors are paid out-of-pocket expenses
related to their attendance at Board or Committee meetings.  Under the Company’s Omnibus Plan of 1996, as
amended, Directors are awarded options to purchase 15,000 shares of Common
Stock on June 30th of the first year of service or as of the close of business
thirty (30) days following his/her election, whichever shall first occur, and
options for 10,000 shares of Common Stock on June 30th of each year following
their reelection.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: Y.A.

- C., A MINOR

PETITION OF: M.C.

- L., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 241 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: Y.E.C.

- A.., A

MINOR

PETITION OF: M.C.

- L., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 242 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: I.C.

- A.., A MINOR

PETITION OF: M.C.

- L., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 243 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: I.E.C.A., A MINOR

PETITION OF: M.C.

- L., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 244 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of November, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
(February 28, 1967)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Montgomery, Appellant, v. Ross E. Herold, as Superintendent of Dannemora State Hospital, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal as academic granted, appellant having been discharged from Dannemora State Hospital during the pendency thereof. (See *People ex rel. Pylypcuk*v. *Herold,*25 A D 2d 690.) Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Lloyd U. Noland, III, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Noland Company.

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 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 subsidiary, is made known to us by others within that entity, 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 controls 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:  May 5, 2004

Lloyd U. Noland, III

Lloyd U. Noland, III	

Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 17.2



                                                              September 24, 1996


Allyson D. Laackman
Chief Financial Officer
Jack Carl/312-Futures, Inc.
200 West Adams Street
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL  60606


Dear Ms. Laackman:

     I hereby resign as Director of Jack Carl/312-Futures, Inc. effective
Tuesday, October 1, 1996.  As you know, since my employment by E.D.& F. Man
International Inc. began on July 1, 1996, my only involvement with the affairs
of the Company has been in winding up legal matters for Index Futures Group,
Inc.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   /s/PHILIP A TANZAR


                                   Philip A. Tanzar


                                     -164-
### IDEM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT We ProtectHoosiers and OurEnvironment. MitchellE. Daniels, Jr. 100 North Senate Avenue Governor Indianapolis. Indiana 46204 (317) 232-8603 Thomas W Easterly Toll Free (800) 451-6027 Commissioner www.idem.IN.gov Bharat Mathur Acting Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region V 77 WestJackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 December 9, 2009 

### RECEIVED 

## DEC 14 

## 2009 U.S. EPA 1""0'" OfFICEOfREGIONAl.AIJi\l1,'I;) i ,,-:, ...

DearMr. Mathur: Re: SIP Submittal for Indiana Regarding 326 lAC 24, CAIR Amendments (LSA #08-5); Clarification ofJune 29, 2009 Letter

On June 29, 2009, the Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) submitted a request for approval ofamendments to the Indiana state implementation plan (SIP) regarding 326 lAC 24-1,326 lAC 24-2, and 326 lAC 24-3 (Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)). The CAIR amendments rulemaking, effective on June 11,2009, addresses deficiencies identified by U.S. EPA to secure full approval and revisions to the definition ofcogeneration unitpublished on October 19,2007 (72 FR 59190).Indiana's CAIRrules were effective on February 28, 2007, and U.S. EPA subsequently gave limited approval on October 22,2007 (72 FR 59480). The June 29, 2009, letterrequesting SIP approval was not clearthat IDEM is requesting full approval ofthe CAIR rules at 326 lAC 24-1, 326 lAC 24-2, and 326 lAC 24-3, notjustthe amendments effective on June 11,2009. IDEM is requesting full CAIR SIP approval. All supporting documentation regarding the CAIRrules was included in the original parallel processing request dated January 19,2007, with final rule documents submitted on February 28, 2007 (LSA #05-117). Staffofthe Office ofAir Quality worked closely with your staffto ensure that any potential problems that might exist with this requested SIP revision would be resolved. I request that U.S. EPA approve this amendment to Indiana's SIP. Ifyou have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Scott Deloney, Air Programs Branch, Office ofAir Quality at 317-233-5694.

TWE/sb
cc: John Mooney, U.S. EPA Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA SIP file
RecycledPaper

# * An Equal Opportunity Employer Please Recycle 

### 0