alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 23, 2017

v No. 329177
Mecosta Circuit Court JONATHAN JOSEPH GOOD, LC No. 08-006437-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: B ORRELLO , P.J., and M ARKEY and M. J. K ELLY , JJ.

B ORRELLO

, J. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part ).

In this matter the majority denied defendant relief for damage s arising out of a break-in to the Ace Gun Shop on th e basis that such re lief was beyond the s cope of the remand order. While I do not disagree with the basis provided for the decision reac hed by the majority, because I am of the opinion that precedent from our Supreme Court clearly st ates that Ace Gun Shop is not entitled to restitution, I write separately to provide an alter native basis for relief.

MCR 7.216(A)(7) empowers this Court to “enter any judgement or order or grant further

relief or different relief as t he case may require.” My review of the record submitted in this matter leads me to conclude that defendant was not charged with breaking and entering into the Ace Gun Shop, yet he was ordered to pay restitution to Ace Gun Shop for damages incurred as a result of defendant’s alleged actions. This is contrary to our Supreme Court’s holding in People v McKinley , 496 Mich 410, 413; 852 NW2d 770 (2014) wherein our Supreme Co urt stated: “In this case, we decide whether a trial court’s restitution award that is based solely on uncharged conduct may be sustained. We c onclude that it cannot.” Our Su preme Court defined “uncharged conduct” as “ . . . criminal conduct that the defendant alleged ly engaged in that was not relied on as a basis for any criminal charge and therefore was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a

trier of fact.” 496 Mich at 413 n.1.

Here, defendant was not charged, much less convicted, of any d amage to the Ace Gun Shop. However, the trial court in this matter ordered defendan t to pay restitution for uncharged conduct. Such a ruling is in direct contravention of our Supre me Court’s ruling in McKinley

. Therefore, I respectfully dissent on this issue and pursuant to McKinley , 496 Mich at 413 and MCR 7.216(A)(7), I would vacate t hat portion of the restitution order imposed on defendant relating to the Ace Gun Shop.-2- I concur with the majority in t he remainder of their opinion.

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
AIDD Help American Vote Act (HAVA) Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2013 Annual Allocation

6/11/2013

State/Territory

AIDD Help 

American Vote Act 

(HAVA)

Alabama $70,000

Alaska $70,000

Arizona $70,000

Arkansas $70,000

California $347,600

Colorado $70,000

Connecticut $70,000

Delaware $70,000

District of Columbia $70,000

Florida $175,751

Georgia $90,517

Hawaii $70,000

Idaho $70,000

Illinois $118,682

Indiana $70,000

Iowa $70,000

Kansas $70,000

Kentucky $70,000

Louisiana $70,000

Maine $70,000

Maryland $70,000

Massachusetts $70,000

Michigan $91,079

Minnesota $70,000

Mississippi $70,000

Missouri $70,000

Montana $70,000

Nebraska $70,000

Nevada $70,000

New Hampshire $70,000

New Jersey $81,350

New Mexico $70,000

New York $179,511

North Carolina $89,053

North Dakota $70,000

Ohio $106,469

Oklahoma $70,000

Oregon $70,000

Pennsylvania $117,517

Rhode Island $70,000

South Carolina $70,000

South Dakota $70,000

Tennessee $70,000

Texas $236,775

Utah $70,000

Vermont $70,000

Virginia $74,668

Washington $70,000

West Virginia $70,000

Wisconsin $70,000

Wyoming $70,000

American Samoa $35,000

Guam $35,000

Puerto Rico $70,000

Virgin Islands $35,000

TOTAL $4,613,972
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

June 27, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41098

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR CONAN BARAHONA-MENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-1303-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hector Conan Barahona-Mendez (Barahona) appeals his conviction

for attempted i llegal reentry into the United States after

deportati on and after his conviction for an aggravated felony in

violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2). He argues that the

magistrate judge failed to determine at his rearraignment that his

guilty plea was voluntary and not the result of outside promises,

as required by former F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11(d) (now F ED

. R. C RIM

. P.

11(b)(2)). He claims that he pleaded guilty based upon his2

attorney’s erroneous advice regarding his sentence.

Because Barahona failed to object in the district court to

this alleged F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11 error, he be ars the burden of

demonstratin g plain error, and we may consult the entire record

when determining the effect of this alleged error on his

substantial rights. S ee United States v. Vonn

, 535 U.S. 55, 122 S.

Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002).

The magistrate judge’s inquiries at his rearraignment and the

record as a whole establish that Barahona’s guilty plea was

voluntary. See United States v. Law , 633 F.2d 1156, 1158 and n.1

(5th Cir. 1981). For example, at the rearraignment, Barahona’s

indictment was read to him, and he acknowledged that he understood

the charge. Barahona also confirmed the correctness of the factual

basis for his guilty plea. In addition, Barahona told the

magistrate judge that he had attended college in the United States

and had worked as a business administrator and with computers.

Furthermore, Barahona did not object to t he magistrate judge’s

proposed finding that he had entered his guilty plea freely and

voluntarily.

Moreover, Barahona was informed about the maximum penalty for

the crime to which he pleaded guilty; therefore, Barahona was aware

of the consequences of his guilty plea and any erroneous advice of

his counsel to the contrary is immaterial. S ee United States v.

Jones , 905 F.2d 867, 868 (5th Cir. 1990).

Consequently, Barahona has not shown that the m a gistrate3

judge’s failure to make the specific inquiry set forth in F ED

.

R. C RIM

. P. 11(d) was plain er ror. S ee Vonn

, 122 S. Ct. at 1046.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350In connection with the Quarterly Report of Akorn, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which thisCertification is an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does herebycertify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.1350) and Rule 13a-14(b) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR240.13a-14(b)), that to my knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date: November 8, 2007 /s/ JEFFREY A. WHITNELL   Jeffrey A. Whitnell   Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 609 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 609

 Recognizing the need for rapid recapitalization of the KC-135 aerial 
refueling fleet through re-competition of the United States Air Force's 
                           KC-X solicitation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 7, 2008

 Mrs. Murray (for herself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Roberts, and Mrs. McCaskill) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the need for rapid recapitalization of the KC-135 aerial 
refueling fleet through re-competition of the United States Air Force's 
                           KC-X solicitation.

Whereas aerial refueling tankers are the backbone of the worldwide airpower 
        capability of the United States;
Whereas the United States Air Force fleet of KC-135 aerial refueling tankers is 
        aging and needs to be recapitalized; and
Whereas recapitalization of the KC-135 medium-sized aerial refueling tanker is 
        the top acquisition priority of the United States Air Force: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) encourages the United States Air Force to quickly re-
        compete the KC-X solicitation on the terms the Government 
        Accountability Office (GAO) recommended in its June 18, 2008, 
        decision;
            (2) recognizes that a rapid, thorough, and fair re-
        competition under the terms of the original KC-X request for 
        proposals is the best way to provide the United States Air 
        Force with next-generation aerial refueling tanker capability 
        in a timely manner;
            (3) recognizes that the KC-X solicitation is the first 
        phase of a three-phased strategy for recapitalizing the tanker 
        fleet, and that the KC-X solicitation should be based on a full 
        and transparent competition to select a single aircraft design; 
        and
            (4) supports the recommendation of the Government 
        Accountability Office that ``the Air Force reopen discussions 
        with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the 
        revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, 
        consistent with this decision.''
                                 <all>
```
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 716 

Acknowledging the accomplishments and goals of the Youth Impact Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2008 

Mr. VITTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Acknowledging the accomplishments and goals of the Youth 

Impact Program. 

Whereas many at-risk young men in the inner cities of the 

United States face a challenging and uncertain future; 

Whereas the future success of at-risk young men can be 

greatly enhanced through sustained mentorship; 

Whereas effective working partnerships between and within 

the public and private sectors can have a lasting and 

positive impact on the future of at-risk young men; 

Whereas participation in organized sports has provided a creative and disciplined outlet and a path to a better life for 

many at-risk young men; 

Whereas the Youth Impact Program combines the disciplines 

of football, mentoring, and academics in partnerships between local National Football League franchises and uniVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR716.IS SR716

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 716 IS 

versities to promote discipline, learning, and positive values; 

Whereas the Youth Impact Program is a community-based 

program that has proven its value over the past 2 years 

in raising the outlook and aspirations of at-risk young 

men and has provided at-risk young men greater exposure to academics, core values, and life skills; 

Whereas the Youth Impact Program provides year-round 

mentoring to its participants, a proven formula for building success; 

Whereas the National Football League, the National Football 

League Players Association, the University of Southern 

California, and Tulane University have provided critical 

support to the Youth Impact Program; 

Whereas the Youth Impact Program will be expanded to 3 

additional cities in partnership with local National Football League franchises and universities; 

Whereas the Youth Impact Program seeks to establish a 

presence in each city with a local National Football 

League franchise; and 

Whereas under the vision and leadership of Mr. Riki Ellison, 

the founder of the Youth Impact Program, a 10-year veteran of the National Football League, a 3-time Super 

Bowl champion, and a University of Southern California 

alumnus, the Youth Impact Program has expanded from 

a regional program to a program with a growing national 

presence: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 716 IS 

1 (1) congratulates Mr. Riki Ellison for his lead2 ership and vision in founding the Youth Impact Pro3 gram; 

4 (2) recognizes the ongoing and significant con5 tributions of the National Football League, the Uni6 versity of Southern California, and Tulane Univer7 sity to the Youth Impact Program; and 

8 (3) encourages the expansion of the Youth Im9 pact Program to inner cities across the United 

10 States. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       200
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (800)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

# **Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

** **

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), theundersigned officer of Alexander’s, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2011**(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

** **

|        |   |   |
|-------------|--------|--------|
| May 2, 2011 |   |   | /s/ Joseph Macnow |
|        |   | Name:  | Joseph Macnow |
|        |   | Title: | Executive Vice President and   Chief Financial Officer |
|        |   |   |   |   |

 

 

 

----
Affirmation of Subordination Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AFFIRMATION OF SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT 
 THIS AFFIRMATION OF SUBORDINATION
AGREEMENT (this “Affirmation”) is made as of June 28, 2012, by the undersigned creditor (“Creditor”) for the benefit of COMERICA BANK (“Bank”) 

RECITALS 

A. eGain Communications Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”) and Bank are parties to that certain Loan and
Security Agreement dated as of June 27, 2011 (as modified, amended, restated, supplemented, revised or replaced, the “Agreement”). Borrower and Bank propose to enter into a Second Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement dated
as of June 28, 2012 (the “Amendment”). 
 B. Creditor executed for the benefit of Bank a Subordination
Agreement, dated as of June 27, 2011 (as amended from time to time, the “Subordination Agreement”). Bank has agreed to enter into the Amendment provided, among other things, that, Creditor acknowledges the entry by Borrower
into the Amendment and agrees that its Subordination Agreement will remain effective. 
 AGREEMENT 

NOW, THEREFORE, Creditor agrees as follows: 
 1. Creditor acknowledges the execution, delivery and performance by Borrower of the Amendment, as well as all other amendments and modifications to the Agreement, both now existing or hereafter arising.
The Subordination Agreement shall remain in full force and effect with respect to Borrower’s obligations to Bank under the Agreement and otherwise. 
 2. Creditor affirms its obligations under the Subordination Agreement. 
 3. Unless
otherwise defined, capitalized terms in this Affirmation shall have the meaning assigned in the Subordination Agreement or the Agreement, as applicable. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Affirmation of Subordination Agreement as of the first date above written. 

 

	
	“Creditor”
	
	             /s/ Ashutosh
Roy

	ASHUTOSH ROY
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1101V

UNPUBLISHED

BRENDA MCBRIDE,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: November 18, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.

Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On July 30, 2019, Brenda McBride filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a full thickness rotator cuff tear that 

was caused-in-fact by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered to her on 

November 10, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 17, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) 

Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent “concluded that [P]etitioner suffered a Table SIRVA

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

as defined by 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that the 

statutory six-month sequela requirement has been satisfied. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7308

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. HIRAM GRANADOS ALVAREZ, a/k/a Pariente , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , Senior District Judge. ( 3:12

- cr - 00047

- HEH

- 1 )

Submitted : June 24, 2021 Decided: June 28, 2021

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Hiram Granados Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hiram Granados Alvarez appeals the distric t court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alvarez’s
motion. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, we deny Alvarez’s motions for appointment of counsel and affirm
the district cou rt’s judgment. 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.
AFFIRMED