alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* After examining the Anders brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument

is unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the brief and the record. See Fed. R. App.

P. 34(a)(2).

 

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 24, 2009*

Decided October 6, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐2430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

JAMES SMITH,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No.  1:06‐cr‐00682‐4

Samuel Der‐Yeghiayan,

     Judge.

O R D E R

On June 4, 2008, defendant‐appellant James Smith (“Smith”) filed a notice of direct appeal

after pleading guilty to two counts of violating 21 U.S.C. § 843, use of a telephone to commit

a controlled substance offense, and being sentenced to a total of 96 months in the custody of the

Bureau of Prisons.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2430 Page 2

On February 26, 2009, his appointed counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that despite thoroughly scrutinizing the record, he was unable to

discern a non‐frivolous issue to pursue.  On February 27, 2009, we informed Smith that he had

thirty days to present any argument to demonstrate that his conviction and/or sentence was

invalid.  Smith presented no such argument.

We have reviewed the brief presented by counsel and agree that there is no non‐frivolous

issue.    According, we affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence, and grant the motion to

withdraw.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Max A. Gulack, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to support the board’s ¡finding that Louis Masheb was an employee of appellant rather than an independent contractor, thus making appellant liable for unemployment contributions. The question of whether an employment relationship existed between Masheb and appellant is factual, and thus for us to disturb the board’s decision we must find, on the basis of the record before us that, as a matter of law, no employment relationship existed (Labor Law, § 623; e.g., *Matter of Stork Restaurant*v. *Boland,*282 N. Y. 256, 267). The finding of an employment relationship is not necessarily proscribed by the fact that Masheb was an attorney *(Matter of Morgenstein [Tepp],*274 App. Div. 866), that he acted in a professional capacity *(Matter of Parson Sanitarium [Corsi],*271 App. Div. 859), that he did not devote himself exclusively to appellant’s work and was permitted to engage in a legal practice on his own behalf (see *Matter of Stotz [Corsi],*281 App. Div. 726), and that he did not consider himself to be an employee (see *Matter of Realty Hotels*[Corsi], 285 App. Div. 919). These are merely factors to be considered by the board in reaching its determination. Here there is also proof that appellant exercised supervisory control over Masheb’s activities in his behalf, that appellant had the absolute right to terminate the relationship, and that Masheb did not maintain a separate office for the practice of law, but rather was provided by appellant with an office, telephone service, stenographic services and even litigation covers, stationery, etc. Thus at best there is conflicting evidence as to the relationship and the board’s resolution of that conflict must stand. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herliliy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., J J., concur in a memorandum decision by Reynolds, J.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30193

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES GODWIN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CR-64-1

Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Godwin appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Godwin argues that the district

court erred by applying an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6) for

using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. He

asserts thatthere was insufficient evidence that he was involved in the burglary

that resulted in the theft of the firearm he possessed.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 23, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30193

2

A “district court may adopt facts contained in a PSR without inquiry, so

long as the facts have an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not

present rebuttal evidence.” United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th

Cir. 2006). The presentence report (PSR) relied on investigations by the

Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Firearms, which included a statement from another participant in the burglary

describing Godwin’s role in that offense. This court has held that even

uncorroborated hearsay evidence is sufficiently reliable for sentencing purposes.

See United States v. West, 58 F.3d 133, 138 (5th Cir. 1995). Godwin did not

present sufficient evidence to rebut the facts stated in the PSR. It is the

defendant’s burden to show that the information in the PSR is materially

untrue, United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 248 (5th Cir. 2005), and

absent rebuttal evidence, the district court is entitled to rely on the facts stated

in the PSR. United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 164 (5th Cir. 2005).

As the district court’s factual determination was not implausible in light of the

record as a whole, Godwin has not shown that the district court clearly erred by

applying the enhancement. See Caldwell, 448 F.3d at 290. 

AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
 CERTIFICATION OF W. RANDALL FOWLER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF EPE HOLDINGS, LLC, THE GENERAL PARTNER OF
ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS L.P.
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.
 /s/ W. Randall FowlerName:
    
    W. Randall FowlerTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer of EPE Holdings, LLCon behalf of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.
#### CHASE, Appellant, v. GROVER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, second Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by William Sheafe Chase against William T. Grover.

No opinion. Motion granted, on condition that the claim for costs be waived; otherwise motion denied.
#### The State ex rel. Geraci, Appellant, *v.*Neubert, Admr.; Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel Geraci v. Neubert*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 128.]

(No. 96-2360

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Geraci & LaPema Co., L.P.A.,*and *Rudolph J. Geraci,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Steve P. Dlott,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and grant relief consistent with *State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm*(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 15, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 15, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0241. JOHN O. QUICK v. JUDITH H. QUICK.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2017CV298338
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002* 
 In connection with the annual report of International Gemini Technology Inc. (the Company) on
Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward D. Ford, Director and acting Chief
Accounting 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 containing the financial statements of the Company 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: September 22, 2005 
 /s/ Edward D. FordEdward D. FordDirector and acting Chief Accounting Officer   *
#### § 27.11 Area Director, Marketing Services Office; responsibility.

Subject to this subpart and the instructions of the Director, the Area Director of each Marketing Services Office shall be responsible for the proper performance of the duties imposed on such office and on the persons connected therewith.

[48 FR 49210, Oct. 25, 1983]
|                                                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                                                     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                                     |   | Fiscal Year Ended |
| (In millions)                                                       |   | 2011 |   | 2010 |   | 2009 |   | 2008 |   | 2007 |
| Loss from Continuing Operations Before Taxes                             |   | $ | (786 | ) |   | $ | (712 | ) |   | $ | (623 | ) |   | $ | (312 | ) |   | $ | (1,167 | ) |
| Interest on Debt, Net of Capitalized Interest                            |   | 716 |  |   | 586 |  |   | 595 |  |   | 570 |  |   | 609 |  |
| Amortization of Capitalized Interest                                     |   | — |  |   | — |  |   | — |  |   | 48 |  |   | 68 |  |
| Portion of rents deemed representative of the interest factor (1/3) |   | 77 |  |   | 69 |  |   | 68 |  |   | 68 |  |   | 63 |  |
| (Losses) Earnings Available for Fixed Charges                            |   | $ | 7 |  |   | $ | (57 | ) |   | $ | 40 |  |   | $ | 374 |  |   | $ | (427 | ) |
| Interest on Debt                                                         |   | $ | 716 |  |   | $ | 586 |  |   | $ | 595 |  |   | $ | 570 |  |   | $ | 609 |  |
| Preferred Dividends                                                      |   | — |  |   | — |  |   | — |  |   | — |  |   | — |  |
| Interest Expense Portion of Rental Expense                               |   | 77 |  |   | 69 |  |   | 68 |  |   | 68 |  |   | 63 |  |
| Total Fixed Charges                                                      |   | $ | 793 |  |   | $ | 655 |  |   | $ | 663 |  |   | $ | 638 |  |   | $ | 672 |  |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                       |   | — |  |   | — |  |   | — |  |   | — |  |   | — |  |
| Deficiency                                                               |   | $ | (786 | ) |   | $ | (712 | ) |   | $ | (623 | ) |   | $ | (264 | ) |   | $ | (1,099 | ) |
Exhibit
      10.8


**Chardan
      North China Acquisition Corporation**


625
      Broadway, Suite 1111


San
      Diego, CA 92101








May
      16,
      2006








Continental
      Stock Transfer & Trust Company


17
      Battery Place


New
      York,
      NY 10004


Attn:
      Steven G. Nelson





EarlyBirdCapital,
      Inc.


275
      Madison Avenue, Suite 1203


New
      York,
      NY 10016


Attn:
      David M. Nussbaum, Chairman





Re:  Investment
      Management Trust Agreement





Gentlemen:





Reference
      is made to that certain Investment Management Trust Agreement (the “Agreement”),
      dated as of August 2, 2005, between Chardan North China Acquisition Corporation
      (“Company”) and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company. Section 1(c) is
      hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:





“(c)
      In a
      timely manner, upon the instruction of the Company, to invest and reinvest
      the
      Property in United States “Government Securities” with the meaning of Section
      2(a)(16) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 having a maturity of 180 days
      or
      less, and/or in any open ended investment company registered under the
      Investment Company Act of 1940 that holds itself out as a money market fund
      selected by the Company meeting the conditions of paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3)
      and
      (c)(4) of Rule 2a-7 promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940; as
      determined by the Company;”





Except
      as
      indicated above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
      effect.







CHARDAN
                NORTH CHINA ACQUISITION
              CORPORATIONBy:
            /s/ Richard
              PropperName:Richard
                Propper
              Title:Chairman








Acknowledged
      and agreed this 16 day of May, 2006








CONTINENTAL
      STOCK TRANSFER &


TRUST
      COMPANY








By:
              /s/ Steven NelsonName:Steven
                Nelson
              Title:Chairman






The
      undersigned is required to consent to this amendment pursuant to Section 5(c)
      of
      the Investment Management Trust Agreement and hereby does so.






EARLYBIRDCAPITAL,
      INC.




By:
              /s/ Steven LevineName:
                Steven Levine
              Title:President
118 STAT. 1378 PUBLIC LAW 108–345—OCT. 18, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2508:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–327 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 15, considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 108–345

108th Congress

An Act

To redesignate the Ridges Basin Reservoir, Colorado, as Lake Nighthorse.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RENAMING OF RESERVOIR.

The reservoir known as the ‘‘Ridges Basin Reservoir’’ located

on Basin Creek, a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado,

constructed under section 6(a) of the Colorado Ute Indian Water

Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2975; 114 Stat. 2763A–

260), shall be known and designated as ‘‘Lake Nighthorse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the reservoir referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to Lake Nighthorse.

Approved October 18, 2004.

Oct. 18, 2004

[S. 2508]
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 9, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-19-00332-CR

ANA MARIA MEDINA, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 230th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1533756 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The trial court convicted appellant, Ana Maria Medina, in July 2017 of the 

third-degree felony offense of injury to an elderly individual. This court affirmed her 

conviction on October 9, 2018. See Medina v. State, No. 14-17-00638-CR, 2018 WL 

4869504 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 9, 2018, no pet.) (not designated for 

publication). 

On December 18, 2018, appellant filed a second notice of appeal from her 

conviction. We dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Medina v. State, 
2

No. 14-18-01109-CR, 2019 WL 190900 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 15, 

2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (not designated for publication). 

Appellant subsequently filed three more notices of appeal in the trial court, on 

January 16, 2019, February 5, 2019, and April 12, 2019, respectively. Each notice 

of appeal appears to challenge the evidence underlying appellant’s conviction. Also 

included in the clerk’s record are (1) a handwritten document entitled “Motion to 

Reduce State Jail Felony to Misdemeanor Conviction,” filed January 16, 2019, and 

(2) an order signed February 25, 2019, releasing appellant from an intermediate 

sanction facility. 

No authority grants us jurisdiction over a subsequent direct appeal from a 

conviction after we have affirmed that conviction. It does not appear appellant is 

trying to appeal the order releasing her from an intermediate sanction facility. There 

is no other appealable order in the record. 

Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*June 9, 2006*

[Cite as *06/09/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2870.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

2006-0104.

#### C.R. Green, L.P. v. Mayfield Hts.

Cuyahoga App. No. 85853, 2005-Ohio-6359. On appellant’s motion to clarify the court’s order of April 26, 2006, and appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed. Motion to clarify denied as moot.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                            DEC-31-97      DEC-31-96
                                                        -------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>               <C>
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE
   Net Income (Loss)                                      $   (409,200)   $   (978,034)
   Weighted average shares outstanding                      46,746,085      34,598,000

   Primary Income (Loss) per share                        $      (0.01)   $      (0.03)

FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
   Net Income (Loss)                                      $   (409,200)   $   (978,034)
   Weighted average shares outstanding                      46,746,085      34,598,000
   Addition from assumes exercise of
     Common Stock purchase warrants and options                450,000       1,275,000
   Addition from assumed conversion of
     Preferred Stock                                              --           300,000
                                                          ------------    ------------

Weighted average number of Common Shares
   outstanding on a fully diluted basis                     47,196,085      36,173,000

FULLY DILUTED (LOSS) PER SHARE                            $      (0.01)   $      (0.03)
==============================
</TABLE>


a) This calculation is submitted in accordance with regulation S-K Item
601 (b) (11) although it is contrary to paragraph 40 of APB Opinion No. 15
because it produces an anti-dilutive results.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Article 5 Financial Data Statement
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000793730
<NAME>                        NHP Retirement Housing, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1.00
<CASH>                        4,495,733
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 31,892
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0
<PP&E>                        64,946,627
<DEPRECIATION>                (15,456,154)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                55,585,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         0
<BONDS>                       42,672,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      0
<OTHER-SE>                    (12,019,988)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  55,585,840
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              15,548,138
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 12,381,904
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              652,876
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            6,036,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (3,522,917)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (3,522,917)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0



</TABLE>
Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF   Document 63   Filed 06/18/20   Page 1 of 5

Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF   Document 63   Filed 06/18/20   Page 2 of 5

Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF   Document 63   Filed 06/18/20   Page 3 of 5

Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF   Document 63   Filed 06/18/20   Page 4 of 5

Case 5:20-cr-00010-MW-MJF   Document 63   Filed 06/18/20   Page 5 of 5
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THEREGISTRANT**

Thefollowing is a list of the subsidiaries of the Company:
|            | ** ** | ** **                                          | ** ** | ** **    | ** ** | **Place of**      | ** ** | ** ** |
|------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------|------------|-------------------|------------|------------|
| ** ** | ** ** | **Subsidiary**                                      | ** ** | ** **    | ** ** | **Incorporation** | ** ** | ** ** |
| 1)         |       | Candela Iberica,  S.A.                              |       | Spain         |
| 2)         |       | Candela France  SARL                                |       | France        |
| 3)         |       | Candela KK                                          |       | Japan         |
| 4)         |       | Candela  Deutschland GmbH                           |       | Germany       |
| 5)         |       | Candela Italia                                      |       | Italy         |
| 6)         |       | Candela Holdings,  B.V.                             |       | Netherlands   |
| 7)         |       | Inolase (2002),  Ltd.                               |       | Israel        |
| 8)         |       | Candela  Corporation Australia PTY, Ltd.            |       | Australia     |
| 9)         |       | Candela Skin Care  Centers of Boston, Inc.     |       | Massachusetts |
| 10)        |       | Candela Skin Care  Centers of Scottsdale, Inc. |       | Massachusetts |

 

----