alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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. 07-30600

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY J GOBERT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CR-20001-ALL

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony J. Gobert has appealed his jury conviction of being a felon in

possession of a firearm. He contends that the evidence introduced to prove his

guilt was insufficient. We review this question for a manifest miscarriage of

justice because Gobertfailed to renew his motion for judgment of acquittal atthe

close of all the evidence. See United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 449 (5th Cir.

2004). Under that standard, Gobert must show that the record is “devoid of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 23, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30600

2

evidence of guilt” or that the evidence is “so tenuous that a conviction is

shocking.” Avants, 367 F.3d at 449.

Gobert contends only that the Government failed to prove that he was in

possession of a firearm. See United States v. Guidry, 406 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir.

2005) (listing elements of offense); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Gobert was observed

by an acquaintance in possession of a firearm. Accordingly, there was direct

evidence that Gobert possessed a firearm and the record was not “devoid of

evidence” as to that element of the offense. See Avants, 367 F.3d at 449; United

States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 416 (5th Cir. 1998). The conviction is 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.33









FERRARA EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT - AMENDMENT #2


Cartesian, Inc. (the “Company”) and John Ferrara (“You” or “Employee”) entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Original Employment Agreement”) effective September 28, 2015, as amended by Amendment #1 thereto dated September 28, 2016 (the “First Amendment”).  The Original Employment Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, is referred to herein as the “Employment Agreement.”  The parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement effective November 14, 2017 by replacing the Section 5(c) of the Employment Agreement set forth in the First Amendment with the following:


5.c.  Stock Option Award.  You were granted 50,000 non-qualified stock options on September 28, 2016 in the First Amendment.  Per resolution of the Compensation Committee of the Cartesian Board of Directors dated November 14, 2017, those options will vest as of November 14, 2017; provided, however, that no part of such Option will be exercisable if the Confidential Severance Agreement and Full and General Release between the Employee and the Company, dated November 15, 2017 (“Severance Agreement”), has been revoked by Employee pursuant to Section 12(f) of the Severance Agreement.


The exercise price of the options is $1.25.  The grant details have been provided in a separate Option Agreement, as amended on the date hereof.


All other existing provisions in the Employment Agreement remain as originally agreed.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first set forth above.




	
					
	THE COMPANY:
	 
	 
	EMPLOYEE:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	CARTESIAN, INC.
A Delaware corporation
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:  /s/ PETER WOODWARD
	 
	 
	/s/ JOHN FERRARA
	 

	PETER WOODWARD
	 
	 
	JOHN FERRARA
	 

	CEO
No. 58688.

protest 239481-K (New York).

#### Manhattan Novelty Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited case, the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Ramos, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 96]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered March 7, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, and, upon his guilty plea, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to a concurrent term of *21/z*to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his present specific challenges to the trial court’s decision to close the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony. Nor would we reverse in the interest of justice where the undercover testified that he worked in a defined area, had ongoing cases in that area, and feared for his safety if his identity were to become known *(People v Reid,*201 AD2d 383, *Iv denied*83 NY2d 875).

Also unpreserved is defendant’s claim that the court failed to respond to two jury notes that appear in the judgment roll as court exhibits but are not mentioned in the transcript. Defendant’s speculative claim that his trial counsel was never informed of these notes is unreviewable on this record, and defendant has made no motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL article 440. In addition, the notes did not contain any requests for information. We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1108
PHILLIP B. ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE W. BUSH; JANET RENO; STATES ATTORNEY; 6 UNKNOWN AGENCY FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-630-3) Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 1, 2004 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip B. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Phillip B. Anderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Bush , No. CA-03-630-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 10, 2003 & Feb. 13, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:17:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jimmie Bohannon

Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)   In connection with the Report of PrepaYd, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce Berman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my 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.  Date: February 23, 2012  By:\s\ Bruce Berman Bruce Berman Chief Executive Officer
EON-NET V. FLAGSTAR 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on January 19, 2010, I served Plaintiff Eon-Net, L.P.’s 

Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Motion for Fees and Costs, the Declaration of 

Jean-Marc Zimmerman, the Declaration of Mitchell Medina, and a Proposed Order on 

Defendant’s counsel Melissa J. Baily, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 by delivering the same by email to melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com. 

 /s/Jean-Marc Zimmerman

 Jean-Marc Zimmerman 

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 190 Filed 01/19/2010 Page 1 of 1
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

h0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

142817

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142817 COA: 301888 JEREMY ALLEN COCHREN, Oakland CC: 2009-227714-FC Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 16, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
| (1)   | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arthur Kaplan Cosmetics, Inc. for the      year ended December 31, 2008 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year      ended December 31, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of Arthur Kaplan      Cosmetics, Inc. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Arthur  Kaplan                                                              |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                            |
| Name:  | Arthur      Kaplan                                                              |
|   |                                                                            |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                            |
| Date:  | March      27, 2009                                                             |
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21677]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Public Availability of the Fiscal Year 2021 Service Contract 
Inventory

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: USTR is announcing that its fiscal year (FY) 2021 service 
contract inventory is publicly available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Secrist, Financial and 
Accounting Analyst, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d70545e5558515158626e585e4f544e497d484e494f1358524d135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95d8fcf6fdf0f9f9f0cac6f0f6e7fce6e1d5e0e6e1e7bbf0fae5bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 395-3505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    In accordance with section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), USTR is providing notice 
that USTR's FY2021 service contract inventory is publicly available. 
The inventory includes several attributes of certain service contracts 
such as dollar value, contract type, and place of performance. USTR 
developed its inventory and analysis in accordance with instructions 
issued by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy.
    USTR's inventory is included in the government-wide inventory at 
https://www.acquisition.gov/service-contract-inventory. The government-
wide inventory can be filtered for USTR data. In addition, analysis of 
FY2020 service contract data is available on the USTR website at 
https://ustr.gov/about-us/reading-room/service-contract-inventories.

Fred Ames,
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Administration, Office of the 
United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 2023-21677 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3290-F3-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7582

JOE LOGAN, SR.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:10-ct-03173-FL)

Submitted: January 28, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Logan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joe Logan, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e) motion.* On appeal, Logan argues that the district 

court abused its discretion in rejecting his requests to reopen 

discovery and for an enlargement of time. He also challenges 

the district court’s conclusion that his FTCA claim is barred by 

the discretionary function exception to sovereign immunity. See

18 U.S.C. § 2680(a) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error as to these issues. Accordingly, we 

affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Logan v. United States, No. 5:10-ct-03173-FL (E.D.N.C. 

Jan. 27, 2012 & Sept. 6, 2012). We deny Logan’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. 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

 * While we conclude that the district court erred in 

construing Logan’s motion to alter or amend as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion, we conclude this error was harmless, as Logan 

cannot demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under Rule 

59(e). See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 

396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (describing Rule 59(e) standard).
Before the First Division,

September 22, 1959

No. 63371.

protests 274791-K and 289931-K (San Francisco).

#### Hanimex USA, Inc., and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*346Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of photo enlargers the same in all material respects as those the subject.of Abstract 61986, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the First Division,

July 24, 1957

No. 61076.

protest 271476-K (New York).

#### Martin Freeman Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise identified on the invoice as items X885A, X885B, and X885C are' not artificial fruits of alabaster, but are manufactures of alabaster, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. 7,665.

#### KELLOGG v. MORSE.

[Cited in Oliver’s Forms fEd. 18281 382. Nowhere reported: opinion not now accessible.]
From: eileen.abbasgrl@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:20:57 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Eileen Mitchell

Gulfport, MS 39503
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0067p.06 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________
J EFFREY D. S LYMAN , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. C ITY OF P IQUA ; G RANT D. KERBER , in his individual and official capacity as Director of Law (City of Piqua), Defendants-Appellees. X - - - - > , - - - - - N No. 07-3468

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton. No. 06-00006—Walter H. Rice, District Judge. Argued: January 30, 2008 Decided and Filed: February 8, 2008 Before: GUY, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

_________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Elaine S. Bernstein, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant. Robert J. Surdyk, SURDYK DOWD & TURNER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Elaine S. Bernstein, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant. Robert J. Surdyk, SURDYK DOWD & TURNER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee.

_________________ OPINION

_________________ PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Jeffrey Slyman was appointed by defe ndant the City of Piqua as an Assistant Law Director. When defendant Gran t Kerber, Piqua’s then-Current Law Director and plaintiff’s supervisor, discharged Slyman, Slyman sued, alleging identical procedural due process violations against both Piqua and Kerber. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff’s due process claims fail because he did not have a federally protected property interest in continued employment. The district court agreed and granted defenda nts’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed this timely appeal. Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, we are not persuaded that a lengthy opinion is necessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the
1No. 07-3468 Slyman v. City of Piqua, et al. Page 2

reasons set forth in the well-reasone d opinion of the district court. See Slyman v. City of Piqua , 494 F. Supp. 2d 732 (S.D. Ohio. 2007).