alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11258

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONNA SUE MCDANIEL, also

known as Donna Cooksey, also

known as Donna Sue Hanson,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

( 4:95-CR-148-3)

June 5, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donna Sue McDan i el argues that the district court abused its discretion in not granting

McDaniel’s oral motion to withdraw her guilty plea based on the government’s breach of their plea

agreement.1 We are aware o f no legal precedent for McDaniel’s assertion that “[m]aking a defendant’s

cooperation known to the sentencing Judge is universally understood to encompass the filling o f a

Moti on for Downward departure if the defendant’s cooperati on is valid.” Our review of the record

indicates that the government did inform the sentencing judge of the nature, extent, and usefulness

of McDaniel’s cooperation; Judge McBryde sentenced McDaniel at the bottom of the guideline range

based in part on this information from the government.

2 We have reviewed the record, including the plea agreement and the district court’s opinion,

and AFFIRM McDaniel’s convict ion. The record does not support McDaniel’s assertion that the

government promised in the plea agreement to file a motion for a downward departure if McDaniel

provided the government with information. Rather, the government agreed to “advise the court, via

the probation office, of the extent of the defendant’s cooperati on

. . . [and] to dismiss the remaining

counts of the Indictment as to this defendant

. . . .” 1 Based on that factor and the totality of the other

circumstances involved, McDaniel has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion

in denying the motion to withdraw her guilty plea. S ee U.S. v. Bond

, 87 F.3d 695, 701 (5th Cir.

1996).

McDaniel also argues that the district court erred in denying her motion for the appointment

of substitute appellate counsel to review t rial counsel’s work and requests this court appoint

substitute counsel to review the record and file a supplemental brief. It is not clear from the record

provided to this court whether McDaniel filed any such motion for appointment of substitute counsel

in the district court. If such a motion was filed, it was properly denied because appellat e co unsel

could not argue on direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective; McDaniel did not develop the

ineffective-assistance claim in the district court. S ee U.S. v. Higdon

, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir.

1987). A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the proper avenue for raising such a claim. S ee U.S. v. Smith

,3

844 F.2d 203, 206 (5th Cir. 1988). For the same reason, McDaniel’s motion for appointment o f

substitute appellate counsel to this court is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                   ELCOM INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES


            SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT AND STATE OF INCORPORATION
                              AS OF MARCH 21, 1997


                                             PLACE OF
     NAME                                 INCORPORATION

Elcom International, Inc.                   Delaware

Elcom Systems, Inc.                         Delaware

Catalink Direct, Inc.                       Delaware

Catalink Direct (Pennsylvania), Inc.        Delaware

Elcom International Limited               United Kingdom
                                         
Elcom Systems Limited                     United Kingdom
                                         
Elcom Group Limited                       United Kingdom
                                         
AMA (UK) Limited                          United Kingdom
                                         
Elcom Holdings Limited                    United Kingdom
                                         
Rapid Recall Limited                      United Kingdom
                                         
Elcom Information Services Limited        United Kingdom

Catalink Direct Limited                   United Kingdom

Prophet Group Limited                     United Kingdom

Portable Computers Limited                United Kingdom

Able Computer Distribution Limited        United Kingdom

Data Supplies Limited                     United Kingdom

Datacare Limited                          United Kingdom
Exhibit 10.5





                               Promissory Note
$ 50,000.00 USD                Temple, Texas                   Date April 23, 01



FOR VALUE RECEIVED, after date, without grace, in the manner, on the dates, and
in the amounts so herein stipulated, the Undersigned, Communicate Now.com Inc.

PROMISE TO PAY TO THE ORDER OF : David Hancock, At Temple, Texas in Bell County 

                 THE SUM OF FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00)


In lawful money of the United States of America, which shall be legal tender, in
payments of all debts and dues, public and private at the time of payment, and
to pay interest thereon from the date until maturity at the rate of 6.5% per
annum, payable as stipulated herein.

THIS NOTE IS DUE AND PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS TO WIT:

FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) principal due in one year (on or before
April 23, 2002). Interest of 270.83 per month due monthly beginning on May 23,
2001.

IT IS AGREED that time is of the essence of this agreement, and that in the
event of default in the payment of any installment of principal or interest when
due, the holder of this note may declare the entirety of the evidenced herby due
and payable without notice, and failure to exercise said option shall not
constitute a waiver on part of the holder of the right to exercise the same at
any other time.

IN THE EVENT of default in the making of any payment herein provided, either or
principal or interest, or in the event the entirety of said note evidenced
hereby is declared due, interest shall accrue at the rate of 10.0% per annum
from such time.

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREES to pay all expenses incurred, including an
additional 10.0% on the amount of principal and interest hereof as attorney's
fees, all of which shall become part of the principal hereof, if this note is
placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, or if collected by suite or
through any probate, bankruptcy or other legal proceedings,

EACH MAKER, SURETY and endorser waives demand, grace, notice, presentment for
payment, and protest and agrees and consents that this note an the liens
securing its payment, may be renewed, and the time of payment extended without
notice, and without releasing any of the parties.


                             CommunicateNow.Com Inc.

                            David Hancock, President
1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1076

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Luis Herrera-Gonzalez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 20, 2003 Filed: June 27, 2003

___________ Before BOWMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Luis Herrera-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute five hundred grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. The District Court 1 sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was too long.-2- We reject this argument. The drug quantity involved in the offense to which Herrera-Gonzalez pleaded guilty subjected him to a minimum of ten years in prison, see21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) (2000), and that was the term imposed. See United States v. Vong , 171 F.3d 648, 654 (8th Cir. 1999) (explaining that by pleading guilty, defendant admitted all factual allegations made in indictment); cf. United States v. Chacon , No. 02-3008, 2003 WL 21295098, at *1 (8th Cir. June 6, 2003) (holding that district court properly granted government’s motion to correct sentence where court originally sentenced defendant below statutory minimum and only avenues for departure were not open to defendant). Upon reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3012 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3012

   To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service, 
 located at 315 Empire Boulevard in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York, 
            as the ``James E. Davis Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 4, 2003

 Mr. Towns (for himself and Mr. Owens) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service, 
 located at 315 Empire Boulevard in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York, 
            as the ``James E. Davis Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JAMES E. DAVIS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 315 Empire Boulevard in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York, 
shall be known and designated as the ``James E. Davis Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the James E. 
Davis Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                         769,242
<SECURITIES>                                 3,946,663
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,669,721
<ALLOWANCES>                                   327,226
<INVENTORY>                                  5,153,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,860,018
<PP&E>                                       7,506,659
<DEPRECIATION>                                 497,791
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,025,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,047,343
<BONDS>                                     15,259,362
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,759
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,300,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,025,836
<SALES>                                      5,707,231
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,707,231
<CGS>                                        3,634,752
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,634,752
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,398,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             276,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (493,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (179,960)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (313,765)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (313,765)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2974

To prohibit the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

from purchasing equipment containing electronic components that are 

not manufactured in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2003

Ms. SLAUGHTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security from purchasing equipment containing electronic components that are not manufactured 

in the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keep America Secure 

5 Act’’. 
2

•HR 2974 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST PURCHASING EQUIPMENT 

2 CONTAINING ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS 

3 NOT MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED 

4 STATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense and the 

6 Secretary of Homeland Security may not purchase any 

7 equipment that contains electronic components that are 

8 not manufactured in the United States. 

9 (b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary concerned may 

10 waive the application of subsection (a) with respect to a 

11 purchase if the Secretary determines that application of 

12 such subsection to such purchase would be inconsistent 

13 with the public interest or would result in unreasonable 

14 costs to the Department of Defense or the Department 

15 of Homeland Security, as the case may be. 

16 (c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this Act, the term 

17 ‘‘electronic components’’ includes, but is not limited to—

18 (1) any integrated chip or sensing device; 

19 (2) communications systems and equipment; 

20 (3) search, navigation, and guidance systems 

21 and equipment; and 

22 (4) software associated with the items described 

23 in paragraphs (1) through (3).

Æ
§ 263.92 Definitions. ( a ) As used in this subpart, the following terms shall have the meaning given in this section unless the context otherwise requires.
( b ) ( 1 ) *Practice before the Board* includes any matters connected with presentations to the Board or to any of its officers or employees relating to a client's rights, privileges or liabilities under laws or regulations administered by the Board. Such matters include, but are not limited to, the preparation of any statement, opinion or other paper or document by an attorney, accountant, or other licensed professional which is filed with, or submitted to, the Board, on behalf of another person in, or in connection with, any application, notification, report or document; the representation of a person at conferences, hearings and meetings; and the transaction of other business before the Board on behalf of another person.
( 2 ) *Practice before the Board* does not include work prepared for an institution solely at its request for use in the ordinary course of its business.
( c ) *Attorney* means any individual who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any state, possession, territory, commonwealth, or the District of Columbia.
( d ) *Accountant* means any individual who is duly qualified to practice as a certified public accountant or a public accountant in any state, possession, territory, commonwealth, or the District of Columbia.
§ 401.12 Licensing of background patent rights to third parties. ( a ) A funding agreement with a small business firm or a domestic nonprofit organization will not contain a provision allowing a Federal agency to require the licensing to third parties of inventions owned by the contractor that are not subject inventions unless such provision has been approved by the agency head and a written justification has been signed by the agency head. Any such provision will clearly state whether the licensing may be required in connection with the practice of a subject invention, a specifically identified work object, or both. The agency head may not delegate the authority to approve such provisions or to sign the justification required for such provisions.
( b ) A Federal agency will not require the licensing of third parties under any such provision unless the agency head determines that the use of the invention by others is necessary for the practice of a subject invention or for the use of a work object of the funding agreement and that such action is necessary to achieve practical application of the subject invention or work object. Any such determination will be on the record after an opportunity for an agency hearing. The contractor shall be given prompt notification of the determination by certified or registered mail. Any action commenced for judicial review of such determination shall be brought within sixty days after notification of such determination.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1992-D,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,373
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  38,950
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               40,323
<PP&E>                                         4,371,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,804,997)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,606,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          88,256
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,518,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,606,376
<SALES>                                        144,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,483
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  579,881<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (508,794)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (508,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (508,794)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Metal Management, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies
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
Corporation.


/s/ Daniel W. Dienst
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Dienst
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
July 28, 2004

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60169

Mansfield Industrial, Incorporated, 

Petitioner,

versus

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission; 

Martin Walsh, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Respondents.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

OSHRC No. 17-1214

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The petition for review is DENIED.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 16, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60169 Document: 00516095045 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2021
Exhibit 10.38


                                  AMENDMENT ONE
                                       TO
                           THE 1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN
                          OF ELCOM INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                  WHEREAS,   subject  to  stockholder  approval,  the  Board  of
Directors of Elcom  International,  Inc. (the "Company")  approved the following
amendment to The 1997 Stock Option Plan of Elcom International,  Inc., effective
February 17, 1998; and

                  WHEREAS,  the  undersigned  officer is authorized,  subject to
stockholder  approval, to integrate this amendment into the Company's 1997 Stock
Option  Plan and any officer is  thereafter  entitled to certify the same as the
true and complete copy of the amended Plan;

                  NOW,  THEREFORE,  The 1997 Stock Option Plan of Elcom  
International,  Inc. is hereby  amended as follows:

         A. The first  sentence of Section 6,  entitled  "Shares  Subject to the
Plan" is hereby deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following:

                           "6.      Shares Subject to the Plan.  Subject to the
provisions  of the next  succeeding  provisions of this Section 6, the aggregate
number of shares of Common Stock for which options may be granted under the Plan
shall be 2,000,000 shares of Common Stock."

                  IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,   Elcom  International,   Inc.,  by  the
undersigned  officer duly authorized,  has executed this document as of the 17th
day of February, 1998.



                                THE COMPANY

                                ELCOM INTERNATIONAL, INC.



                                By:  /s/ Laurence F. Mulhern
                                Laurence F. Mulhern
                                Its:  Corporate Executive Vice President,
                                Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary