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

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 14, 2007

Decided December 18, 2007

Before

 Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 06-4227

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES PINKIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 05-CR-656-1

Ronald A. Guzman

Judge.

O R D E R

James Pinkin was caught in a stolen car with a small quantity of crack and a

pistol with its serial number removed. He pleaded guilty, without a plea

agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),

and one count of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, id.

§ 922(k). Pinkin qualified as an armed career criminal, and thus was subject to a

statutory minimum of 15 years and a guidelines imprisonment range of 188 to 235

months. See id. § 924(e)(1); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. The court sentenced him to a total of

210 months’ imprisonment and a five years’ supervised release. Pinkin filed a

timely notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel now moves to withdraw because

he cannot discern a nonfrivolous basis for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 06-4227 Page 2

U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Although we invited Pinkin to respond to counsel’s motion, he

has not done so. See Cir. R. 51(b). Counsel’s supporting brief is facially adequate,

and we limit our review to the potential issue he identifies. See United States v.

Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel considers only whether Pinkin could challenge his overall prison

sentence as unreasonable. Counsel advises, however, that the district court

properly calculated the guidelines range and then considered the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see United States v. Laufle, 433 F.3d 981, 987-88 (7th Cir.

2006), before imposing a sentence slightly below the middle of the range. The

district court observed that Pinkin had “dealt out a lot of misery,” and opined that

his criminal history would have warranted a stiffer sentence if he had been younger

because “society needs to be protected from this man.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),

(2)(A), (2)(C). Counsel notes that this court applies a rebuttable presumption of

reasonableness to a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines range, 

United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005), and counsel is unable

to articulate any factor in this case that might overcome that presumption. The

Supreme Court recently upheld the use of such a rebuttable presumption, see Rita

v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2463 (2007); United States v. Sachsenmaier, 491

F.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2007), and we agree with counsel that any potential

challenge to the reasonableness of Pinkin’s sentence would be frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is

DISMISSED.
Order filed March 12, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00192

- CV

____________ In the Interest of E.L., a Child

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 05682J



### ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue

. The notice of appeal was filed February 22, 2015 . Appellant has established indigence or is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). The reporter’s record was due within 10 days after the notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). The record has not been filed. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to b e brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal isfiled. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). The trial and appellate courts are jointly

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App.
P. 35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence the preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). Because the reporter’s record has not bee n filed timely in this accelerated appeal, we issue the following order:

We order Cara Skinner , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal on or before March 23 , 201 5

. If Cara Skinner does not timely file the record as ordered, the court will issue an order requiring her to appear at a hearing to show cause why the record has not been timely filed and why she should not be held in contempt of court for failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1573

In Re: NICHOLAS JAMES QUEEN, SR.,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:93-cr-00366-WMN-1)

Submitted: August 12, 2013 Decided: August 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas James Queen, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas Queen, Sr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

seeking an order exempting him from the “gate-keeping” standard 

of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013). We deny the petition. 

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 

509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is 

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the 

relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). 

Queen has failed to demonstrate entitlement to 

mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–15

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 437, THE

PRESIDENTIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1999

FEBRUARY 9, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 44]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 44, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 437, the

‘‘Presidential and Executive Office Financial Accountability Act of

1999,’’ under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general

debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Government Reform.

The rule also provides that the bill will be considered as read.

Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given priority

in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent

with House rules. The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill,

and to reduce votes to five minutes on a postponed question if the

vote follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one

motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 For the Fifth Circuit

No. 01-60570 Summary Calendar

WILLIE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:00-CV-14-WS)

December 21, 2001
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willie Washington (hereinafter plaintiff) sued his employer,

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (hereinafter defendant) in

federal district court alleging that defendant wrongfully denied

him a promotion because of his race. Defendant answered and moved

for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff did not receive2

a promotion on the occasions in which he thinks he should have

because plain tiff had not properly registered his name in the

electronic system used by defendant to notify its employees of job

openings. Once plaintiff registered his name in this system, he

did receive a promotion prior to filing this lawsuit. The district

court granted summary judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the brief s, the record excerpts,

and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated

by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated

June 12, 2001, we affirm the Final Judgment of the district court

of even date therewith which dismis sed all of plaintiff’s claims

with prejudice.

AFFIRMED

.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.9.3
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
 1998 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN
     The Trinity Industries, Inc. 1998 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the “1998 Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:


	
			
	1.
	 
	The first sentence in Section 2 of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“A committee designated by the Board of Directors which shall consist of not less than two members of the Board who shall be appointed by or in accordance with authority delegated by the Board,”


	
			
	2.
	 
	The effective date of this Amendment to the 1998 Plan shall be May 3, 2002.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company as of May 3, 2002.
	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	 
	/s/ Michael G. Fortado
Your employer must

keep you safe by:

• Protecting you from

unsafe jobs.

• Identifying and

correcting job hazards.

• Training you about job hazards in a

language that you can understand.

• Complying with all youth employment

and occupational safety and health laws.

• Not punishing or retaliating against

you for complaining about health and

safety hazards.

Your employer must protect you from

common job hazards that include:

• Falls from working from heights.

• Dangerous chemicals.

• Lifting heavy objects.

• Powered equipment or tools.

• Wet, slippery or cluttered work areas.

• Machinery, electrical equipment.

• Loud noises.

What you can do:

• Speak up; Ask questions; Ask for help.

• Report unsafe conditions to your

supervisor.

• Talk to your teacher, parent, or a

coworker about your job.

• Know your workplace rights. Go to

www.osha.gov/workers.html.

• Follow the safety rules.

• Use personal safety equipment

provided.

• Be alert to what is going on around

you.

• Never bypass the safety features of

equipment or take shortcuts.

If you have questions, call OSHA.

We are here to help.

Call us.

It’s confidential.

OSHA 3330-05R-11

www.osha.gov/teens

(800) 321-OSHA (6742) (TTY) 877-889-5627
At 13 or younger, you can:

• act or perform

• babysit

• deliver newspapers

When 14 or 15, you can work in a:

• amusement park • office

• gas station • restaurant

• movie theatre • retail store

You can work up to:

• 3 hours on a school day

• 8 hours on a non-school day

• 18 hours during a school week

• 40 hours during a non-school

week

You cannot work:

• during school hours

• before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m.

(9 p.m. between June 1

through Labor Day)

When 16 or 17, you can:

• work any hours

• work in any job that is not

hazardous

You cannot work in:

• demolition • meatpacking

• excavation • mining

• logging • roofing

You cannot work with:

• explosives • saws

• radioactive materials

• certain power-driven

machines; or

• operate or ride on a forklift

Most driving is prohibited.

At 18, these job restrictions

no longer apply.

U.S. Department of Labor

Wage and Hour Division

www.Youthrules.dol.gov

866-4US-Wage

(TTY) 877-889-5627

Different rules apply to farms, and

State laws may be stricter.

W

h

a

t

’s

t

h

e

s

c

o

o

p

o

n

w

o

r

k

i

n

g

b

e

f

o

r

e

1

8

?

W

h

a

t

’s

t

h

e

s

c

o

o

p

o

n

w

o

r

k

i

n

g

b

e

f

o

r

e

1

8

?
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.50005 Enforcement. ( a ) *Violations.* In addition to the penalties provided under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.80 of this chapter, if a Reimbursement Program recipient violates the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, Public Law 116-124, 133 Stat. 158, the Commission's rules implementing the statute, or the commitments made by the recipient in the application for reimbursement, the recipient: ( 1 ) Shall repay to the Commission all reimbursement funds provided to the recipient under the Reimbursement Program;
( 2 ) Shall be barred from further participation in the Reimbursement Program;
( 3 ) Shall be referred to all appropriate law enforcement agencies or officials for further action under applicable criminal and civil law; and
( 4 ) May be barred by the Commission from participation in other programs of the Commission, including the Federal universal service support programs established under section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
( b ) *Notice and opportunity to cure.* The penalties described in paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to a recipient unless: ( 1 ) The Commission, the Wireline Competition Bureau, or the Enforcement Bureau provides the recipient with notice of the violation; and
( 2 ) The recipient fails to cure the violation within 180 days after such notice.
( c ) *Recovery of funds.* The Commission will immediately take action to recover all reimbursement funds awarded to a recipient under the Program in any case in which such recipient is required to repay reimbursement funds under paragraph (a) of this section.
SusGlobal Energy Corp.: Exhibit 10.17 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.17 

Summary of Terms of Oral Agreement

The following summarizes the material
terms of an Oral Agreement between SusGlobal Energy Corp. and Travellers
International Inc. 

On November 20, 2015, Travellers
International Inc. an Ontario company controlled by the president and director
of SusGlobal Energy Corp. made a loan in the amount of $59,245, ($82,000 CAD).
The loan bears interest of 12% per annum. is due on demand and is unsecured. As
at December 31, 2015, $682 (2014-$nil), in interest is included in accrued
liabilities. There is no written agreement evidencing this loan.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4598 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4598

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections 
       to maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 1994

  Mrs. Fowler (for herself, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Goss, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. 
 Hutto, Mr. Lewis of Florida, Mr. McHugh, and Mr. Pickett) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant 
                          Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections 
       to maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

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

SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall, before the 
end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act, make such corrections to the maps described in subsection (b) as 
are necessary to ensure that--
            (1) depictions of areas on those maps are consistent with 
        the depictions of areas appearing on the maps entitled 
        ______________, dated ______________, and on file with the 
        Secretary; and
            (2) the Coastal Barrier Resources System does not include 
        any area that, on the day before the date of the enactment of 
        this Act, was part of unit FL-05P of that System.
    (b) Maps Described.--The maps described in this subsection are maps 
that--
            (1) are included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal 
        Barrier Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990; and
            (2) relate to the following units of the Coastal Barrier 
        Resources System: FL-05P, P11A, P17, P17A, P18P, P19, P19P, FL-
        15, FL-95P, FL36P, P31P, MI21, NY75, and BA62P.

                                 <all>
```
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: April 30, 2015 105545

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MICHAEL ALMEIDA, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: March 26, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________ James P. Milstein, Public Defender, Albany (Theresa M. Suozzi of counsel), for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Vincent Stark of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), rendered October 9, 2012 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree. Defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with criminal contempt in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 11⁄2 to 3 years. Defendant appeals. We affirm. Initially, we reject defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. Supreme-2- 105545

Court distinguished the waiver of the right to appeal from the rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea. Defendant further acknowledged that he understood the rights he was waiving and had an opportunity to discuss the waiver with counsel, and he executed a written waiver in open court. Accordingly, we find that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Smith, 123 AD3d 1375, 1375-1376 [2014]; People v Chavis, 117 AD3d 1193, 1193-1194 [2014]). In light of his valid appeal waiver, his assertion that his sentence is harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v Balbuena, 123 AD3d 1384, 1386 [2014]; People v White, 119 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1222 [2015]). Turning to defendant's claims that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, these issues are unpreserved for our review, inasmuch as the record does not indicate that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Lewis, 118 AD3d 1125, 1125 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1003 [2014]; People v Vandemark, 117 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 965 [2014]). Moreover, with respect to the plea, defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that cast doubt upon his guilt or negated a material element of the crime so as to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Waite, 120 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2014]; People v Trombley, 115 AD3d 1114, 1114 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1068 [2014]). Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Rose, JJ., concur.-3- 105545

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         6109389
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  376284
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    15970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6510419
<PP&E>                                         534475
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7045829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          436740
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       21360
<OTHER-SE>                                     6446382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6467742
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               592581
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               857324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (108414)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (264743)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (264743)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (156329)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**







**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(SUBSECTIONS
      (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,** **CHAPTER
      63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**









Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officer of China Mobility Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby
      certifies with respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company
      for
      the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that to his knowledge:






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 Company.







**China
              Mobility Solutions, Inc.**Date: May
              22, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Ernest
              CheungErnest
              CheungTitle
              Secretary
              (PrincipalFinancial Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to China Mobility Solutions, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by China Mobility Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.