alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3737

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Adrian Lacey

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Delta

 ____________

 Submitted: May 12, 2022

Filed: May 20, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Adrian Lacey, who was counseled below but is now proceeding pro se, appeals

after he pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited object in prison, and the district
court1

 sentenced him to 6 months in prison. On appeal, Lacey argues that his right

to a speedy trial was violated, his guilty plea was involuntary, and his counsel was

ineffective.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Lacey waived any speedy trial claim by

pleading guilty. See United States v. Cox, 985 F.2d 427, 433 (8th Cir. 1993) (claim

that indictment should have been dismissed for violation of the Speedy Trial Act was

waived by guilty plea); Speed v. United States, 518 F.2d 75, 76 (8th Cir. 1975) (“it

is well settled that a plea of guilty waives any claim to denial of a speedy trial”). 

Further, the hearing transcript shows that he knowingly and voluntarily entered his

guilty plea, despite his later filings asserting that he was innocent. See United States

v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008) (whether a plea was knowing and

voluntary is reviewed de novo); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir.

1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of

verity).

Finally, we decline to address Lacey’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct

appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002)

(generally, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

1The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.53


AMENDMENT NO. 3  TO 
SYNNEX CORPORATION 
2013 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


In accordance with Section 18(b) of the SYNNEX Corporation 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of January 4, 2017.
1.    Section 4(b)(i) and (ii) are hereby amended in its entirety as follows.
“4(b)    Automatic Grants to Outside Directors.
(i)    Each Outside Director who first joins the Board of Directors on or after January 4, 2017, and who was not previously an Employee, shall receive a number of whole Restricted Shares equal to the quotient of (x) $125,000 prorated for the number of months out of twelve that the Outside Director is expected to serve between the Outside Director’s appointment or election to the Board of Directors and the next regular annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders, rounded to the nearest month (y) divided by the Fair Market Value of a Share as of the grant date.  For purposes of the calculation in the preceding sentence, any fractional Restricted Shares shall be disregarded.  The grant date for Restricted Shares granted pursuant to this Section 4(b)(i) shall be the first trading day after the election of the Outside Director to the Board of Directors; provided if the first trading day after his or her election falls within a trading blackout period, then the grant date for Restricted Shares shall be upon the expiration of the third trading day after the trading black-out period ends.”
(ii)    On the first trading day following the conclusion of each regular annual meeting of the Company's stockholders after such Outside Director's appointment or election to the Board of Directors, commencing with the first annual meeting occurring on or after January 4, 2017, each Outside Director who will continue serving as a member of the Board of Directors thereafter shall receive a number of whole Restricted Shares equal to $125,000 divided by the Fair Market Value of a Share as of such grant date, provided the Outside Director has served on the Board of Directors for at least six months; provided, further, if the first trading day following the conclusion of the regular annual meeting of the Company's stockholders after such Outside Director's appointment or election to the Board of Directors falls within a trading black-out period, then the grant date for Restricted Shares granted pursuant to this Section 4(b) (ii) shall be upon the expiration of the third trading day after the trading black-out period ends. For purposes of the calculation in the preceding sentence, any fractional Restricted Shares shall be disregarded.


1







To record the amendment of the Plan, SYNNEX Corporation has executed this document this 9th day of January 2017.


SYNNEX CORPORATION
By:   /s/ Simon Y. Leung            
Title: General Counsel and Corporate Secretary


2
§ 105-71.126 Non-Federal audit. ( a ) *Basic rule.* Grantees and subgrantees are responsible for obtaining audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507) and revised OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.” The audits shall be made by an independent auditor in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards covering financial audits.
( b ) *Subgrantees.* State or local governments, as those terms are defined for purposes of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, that provide Federal awards to a subgrantee, which expends $300,000 or more (or other amount as specified by OMB) in Federal awards in a fiscal year, shall: ( 1 ) Determine whether State or local subgrantees have met the audit requirements of the Act and whether subgrantees covered by OMB Circular A-110, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations,” have met the audit requirements of the Act. Commercial contractors (private for-profit and private and governmental organizations) providing goods and services to State and local governments are not required to have a single audit performed. State and local governments should use their own procedures to ensure that the contractor has complied with laws and regulations affecting the expenditure of Federal funds;
( 2 ) Determine whether the subgrantee spent Federal assistance funds provided in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. This may be accomplished by reviewing an audit of the subgrantee made in accordance with the Act, Circular A-110, or through other means (e.g., program reviews) if the subgrantee has not had such an audit;
( 3 ) Ensure the appropriate corrective action is taken within six months after receipt of the audit report in instance of noncompliance with Federal laws and regulations;
( 4 ) Consider whether subgrantee audits necessitate adjustment of the grantee's own records; and
( 5 ) Require each subgrantee to permit independent auditors to have access to the records and financial statements.
( c ) *Auditor selection.* In arranging for audit services, § 105-71.136 shall be followed.
[58 FR 43270, Aug. 16, 1993, as amended at 62 FR 45939, 45944, Aug. 29, 1997]
§ 105-62.101 Security classification categories. As set forth in Executive Order 12065, official information or material which requires protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of the national defense or foreign relations of the United States (hereinafter collectively termed “national security”) shall be classified in one of three categories: Namely, Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential, depending on its degree of significance to the national security. No other categories shall be used to identify official information or material as requiring protection in the interests of national security except as otherwise expressly provided by statute. The three classification categories are defined as follows: ( a ) *Top Secret.* Top Secret refers to that national security information which requires the highest degree of protection, and shall be applied only to such information as the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. Examples of exceptionally grave damage include armed hostilities against the United States or its allies, disruption of foreign relations vitally affecting the national security, intelligence sources and methods, and the compromise of vital national defense plans or complex cryptologic and communications systems. This classification shall be used with the utmost restraint.
( b ) *Secret.* Secret refers to that national security information or material which requires a substantial degree of protection, and shall be applied only to such information as the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security. Examples of serious damage include disruption of foreign relations significantly affecting the national security, significant impairment of a program or policy directly related to the national security, and revelation of significant military plans or intelligence operations. This classification shall be used sparingly.
( c ) *Confidential.* Confidential refers to other national security information which requires protection, and shall be applied only to such information as the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable damage to the national security.
#### § 102-39.45 When should I not use the exchange/sale authority?

You should not use the exchange/sale authority if the exchange allowance or estimated sales proceeds for the property will be unreasonably low. You must either abandon or destroy such property, or declare the property excess, in accordance with part 102-36 of this chapter. Further, you must not use the exchange/sale authority if the transaction(s) would violate any other applicable statute or regulation.

[66 FR 48614, Sept. 21, 2001, as amended at 69 FR 11539, Mar. 11, 2004. Redesignated at 73 FR 50880, Aug. 29, 2008]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 116 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37531-37532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15078]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Department of Defense Wage Committee; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that closed 
meetings of the Department of Defense Wage Committee will be held on 
July 11, 2000, July 18, 2000, at 10 a.m. in Room A105, The Nash 
Building, 1400 Key Boulevard, Rosslyn, Virginia.
    Under the provision of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the 
Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the 
criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be 
considered are related to internal rules and practices of the 
Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were 
obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that 
the data will be held in confidence.

[[Page 37532]]

    However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to 
submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed 
to be deserving of the Committee's attention.
    Additional information concerning the meetings may be obtained by 
writing to the Chairman, Department of Defense Wage Committee, 4000 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.

    Dated: June 9, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-15078 Filed 6-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### Carrie Will v. William A. Elwood, Sheriff.

Filed April 16, 1895.

No. 6399.

Review: Sufficiency of Evidence. There is no question of law involved in this ease. The evidence examined, and *held*to support the finding of the jury; aDd the judgment of the district court pronounced thereon is affirmed.

Error from the district court of Antelope county. Tried, below before Allen, J.

*O. A. Williams,*for plaintiff in error.

*M. B. Putney, contra.*

Ragan, C.

W. A. Elwood, the sheriff of Antelope county, had in his possession certain executions issued on judgments rendered against one Frederick Will, which executions he levied upon certain personal property and sold the same and applied the proceeds towards the. satisfaction of said judgments. Ferdinand Will, the minor son of .Frederick Will, by his next friend, Carrie Will, brought this action in the district court of said county against Elwood to recover the value of the property seized by the latter on said executions, claiming that he, Ferdinand Will, was at the time of the seizure of said property the owner thereof. There, was a trial to a jury with a verdict in favor of the sheriff and Carrie Will, as next friend of Ferdinand Will, has prosecuted to this court a petition in error.

The issue litigated before the jury was whether the property seized by the sheriff at the time of its seizure belonged to Frederick Will, the defendant in execution, or to the plaintiff here, Ferdinand Will. The evidence sustains the finding made by the jury. A careful' examination of *848the pleadings, the instructions of the court, and its rulings on the admission and rejection of evidence, leads us to the conclusion that there is in the record not one single error prejudicial to the rights or claims of the plaintiff in error. The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

Affirmed. .
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Analogic Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended
April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, James W. Green, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: June 9, 2010



| |  |  |  |                                      
| |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | /s/ James W. Green                   
| |  |  |  |                                      
| |  |  |  | James W. Green                       
| |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 102-75.185 In those instances where landholding agencies may transfer excess real property without notifying GSA, which policies must they follow?

In those instances, landholding agencies must transfer property following the policies in this subpart.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 2 3 , 2020

t0318 

# Order

Clerk March 2 3 , 2020

159342

JILL CREECH BAUER, JILL CREECH BAUER

LEGAL SERVICES, PLLC, and ATTORNEYS

FOR INDIGENT MOTHERS, PLLC,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 159342

COA: 339703

Genesee CC: 15

- 105396

- CZ

JESSICA HAMMON, ERICA EDGINGTON,

NICHOLAS D’AIGLE, LAW OFFICES OF

JESSICA J. HAMMON, PLL C, ATTORNEYS

FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE, PLLC, MARCIA

L. STIPES, LAW OFFICES OF J.J. EDWARDS,

PLLC, and JADE EDWARDS,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 12, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 105-69.410 Enforcement.

The head of each agency shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that the provisions herein are vigorously implemented and enforced in that agency.
AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION 10-Q





EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of American Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities 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.

|                      |                                                                           
|--------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |                                                                           
|                      |                                                                           
|                      |                                                                           
|November 10, 2003     | BY: s/Carl H. Lindner                                                     
|Date                  | Carl H. Lindner                                                           
|                      | Chairman of the Board and                                                 
|                      | Chief Executive Officer                                                   
|                      |                                                                           
|                      |                                                                           
|                      |                                                                           
|                      |                                                                           
|November 10, 2003Date | BY: s/Fred J. Runk    Fred J. Runk
    Senior Vice President and Treasurer







|A signed original of this written statement will be retained by the Registrant and
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.    





E-4
# Comments on: 23-1295: CLINICOMP INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CERNER CORPORATION [ORDER], Nonprecedential
* 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. 98-60409

Summary Calendar

 

ABDELHAMID BELLI,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

____________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A 74 697 691

_____________________________________________

March 25, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abdelhamid Belli appeals the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals denying his application for asylum and

withholding of deportation. After reviewing the record and the

briefs of the parties, we find that substantial evidence supports

the Board’s decision that Belli is not eligible for asylum and

withholding of deportation. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78

F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Belli’s petition for

review is DENIED.
No. 

-2-

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### § 102-34.120 Do we need to register Government motor vehicles?

If the Government motor vehicle displays U.S. Government license plates and motor vehicle identification, you do not need to register it in the jurisdiction where the vehicle is operated, however, you must register it in the Federal Government Motor Vehicle Registration System. GSA Fleet may register motor vehicles leased from GSA Fleet. Motor vehicles that have been exempted from the requirement to display official U.S. Government license plates under section § 102-34.160, § 102-34.175 or § 102-34.180 must be registered and inspected in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction where the motor vehicle is regularly operated.
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES--OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of Silverstar Holdings,  Ltd. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-K for the year  ended  June 30,  2003 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Clive
Kabatznik,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes--Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

     (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 Company.



                                                /s/  Clive Kabatznik
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Name: Clive Kabatznik
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                Date: September 30, 2003
Attachment A: Summary of 2014 District Data Not Being Certified

Responsible 

Agency (Contact)

Site AQS Site ID Parameter Code, POC, Reason

North Coast Unified 

APCD*

(Wendy Caruso)

Humboldt Hill 06-023-1005 44202, POC 1, More than 2 yellow 

evaluations 

North Coast Unified 

APCD*

(Wendy Caruso)

Humboldt Hill 06-023-1005 88101, POC 1, Flow rate audit 

completeness less than 65%

Sacramento 

Metropolitan 

AQMD

(Janice Lam)

Sacramento 

Health 

Department

06-067-4001 81102, POC 3, Audit not conducted due 

to monitor malfunction in 2014

Imperial County 

APCD (Monica 

Soucier)**

Westmorland 06-025-0005 44201, POC 1, No data for entire year 

due to fire of analyzer in 2012. 

*Refer to North Coast Data Certification Letter

**Refer to Imperial District Data Certification Letter