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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-622

In Re: MARTIN BRAMSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-318-JFM)

Submitted: December 26, 1996 Decided: February 18, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martin Bramson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Martin Bramson petitions this court for a Writ of Mandamus directing the district court to dismiss a pending federal indictment

against him, or appoint counsel to advance his previously denied

motion to dismiss the indictment. A party seeking mandamus relief

must show that he has no other means of relief and that his right

to the relief he seeks is "clear and indisputable." In re Beard,

811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We first note that, as a fugitive from justice who is not in the custody of any official of this

country, but is currently incarcerated in a Liechtenstein prison,

it is not "clear and indisputable" that Bramson has the right to

even request relief in this court. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396

U.S. 365, 366 (1970).

In any event, however, we reject the underlying basis for

Bramson's request for mandamus reliefCthat his right to a speedy

trial has been violated. The delay in bringing Bramson to trial is

clearly primarily attributable to his own decision to flee this

country over four years ago after he was indicted on a variety of

federal charges. See United States v. Mitchell, 957 F.2d 465, 469

(7th Cir. 1992). He admits that he is not being held in Liechtenstein for any violation of the laws of that principality, but

rather pursuant to that country's extradition treaty with the

United States for violations of this country's laws. He therefore

can presumably return to this country and stand trial of his own

volition at any time. Because Bramson is responsible for the delay

of his trial, his Constitutional right to a speedy trial has not
3

been violated. Moreover, delays attributable to the unavailability

of a defendant are excluded from consideration under the Federal

Speedy Trial Act of 1974. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(3)(A) (1994).

Bramson therefore cannot establish any violation of that Act.

Accordingly, the petition for a Writ of Mandamus is denied.

PETITION DENIED
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 05-13-01661-CR OFFENSE: 19.02

Julio Cesar Villalba v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Dallas

535-/5

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 204th Judicial District Court

DATE:03/31/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F-1258991-Q

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Julio Cesar Villalba v. The State of

STYLE: Texas CCA#: S30*/d

APP£LLANT>S Petition CCA Disposition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE:

f~t fus&c/ JUDGE:

DATE: 3Vw Z1. <2£/£~

JUDGE: r^

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

TK REAL ESTATE L.L.C.,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00287

- CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2014

- CCV01128)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion filed by Appellant, Clear Channel Outdoor,

Inc.

, and Appellee, TK Real Estate, L.L.C.

, to dismiss the appeal pursuant to T EX .R.A PP .P.

42.1(a)( 2 ) because the dispute between the parties has been resolved . We grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal

. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the deposit of $7,500 made

pursuant to the Rule 11 Agreement executed by the parties on October 13, 2014 shall be returned

to Appellant

, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. by the El Paso County Clerk. C osts of th e appea l are

taxed against the party incurring same

. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1 (d)

.

March 1 9 , 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Hughes, J., not participating)
EAD 

o companies 

 of unwant

nents, and 

se of them 

: 

, using the 

e causes. 

sible. 

emainder. 

sy. Visit 

 learn how 

rogram. 

 

puters 

end up 

es, 

 envi

e lower. 

For More Information


Contacts 

--> Oliver Voss 

(202) 564-4514 voss.oliver@epa.gov 

--> Karen Richardson 

(202) 564-4378 richardson.karen@epa.gov 

--> Andrea Brunsman 

(202) 564-9699 brunsman.andrea@epa.gov 

Visit <www.epa.gov/oam/read> to learn 

more about the READ Services program. 

Recycling Electronics & Asset Disposition 

The READ Services Program for Recycling Obsolete Electronics 

Point, Click, READ, Recycle 
thout com­ 

s, but have 

appens to 

roducts 

ent once 

? How can 

ld equip

in a ware

n worse, in 

toxic 

nt? 

unwanted 

ed, or dis

A’s READ 

ed under a 

contract 

provides all 

rement 

What Items are Covered by the READ G

WAC? 

• Desktop PCs • Computer monitors • Laptop PCs • Facsimile machines • Printers • Copiers • Shredders • Scanners • Cellular phones 

Benefits of Using 
the READ GWAC
•	 READ contractors ensure 

appropriate levels of security for sensitive electronic data contained in obsolete equipment. 

•	 An audit trail of the 

equipment’s final destination ensures that reclamation and recycling efforts are reportable. 

•	 Federal agencies r

ealize value and 

maximize potential revenues from electronic equipment in storage. 

•	 Using READ helps federal agencies 

meet the requirements associated with Executive Order 13101. 

•	 Using READ naturally fits in with the 

requirements of Executive Order 13148, which requires federal agencies to develop Environmental Management Systems.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                              10,323
<SECURITIES>                                                        26,209
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    37,573
<PP&E>                                                              17,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       3,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      52,007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                2,003
<BONDS>                                                              8,306
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                                95
<OTHER-SE>                                                          41,603
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        52,007
<SALES>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       265
<CGS>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     6,591
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     (5,511)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 (5,511)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (5,511)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         (.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         (.58)
        

</TABLE>
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Jordan Welsh, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Razor Resources Inc.
      for the year ended April 30, 2008(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 Razor Resources Inc.                                                             

Dated: July 29, 2008

| | /s/
      Jordan Welsh                                 
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | Jordan Welsh                                           
| | President and Director                                 
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial
| | Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)              
| | Razor Resources Inc.                                   

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 Razor Resources
Inc. and will be retained by Razor Resources Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
September 29, 1953

No. 57515.

Suit 4749.

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1429 modified June 3, 1953. C. A. D. 525.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10665

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DERREK WYNE HORTON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-262-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Derrek Wyne Horton has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Horton has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 3, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10665 Document: 00515021054 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2019
No. 18-10665

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-10665 Document: 00515021054 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2019
Exhibit 10.58.1





Letter of Agreement


By and between


Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach)


and


UNITE HERE Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 878


Representing


Beluga Power Plant Culinary Plant Employees





Re: Contract Extension




Incorporation by Reference


The parties agree that the terms and conditions of the current Beluga Power Plant Culinary Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between the parties which is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2010 including all attached Letters of Agreement, Letters of Understanding and/or Grievance Resolutions, shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2013, except where modified, added to or deleted by this Contract Extension Agreement.





Article XVI Health and Welfare





The employer agrees to pay the following Health and Welfare contribution amounts effective July 1 of each of the following years:





2010-$3.78


2011-$4.20


2012-$4.69





No other terms of the current (expiration June 30, 2010) Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be modified by this Letter of Agreement.  Upon ratification by the bargaining unit and approval of the Chugach Board of Directors, this Extension Agreement will become effective July 1, 2010.





/s/ Marvin Jones

/s/ Bradley W. EvansUNITE HERE Local 878:

Marvin Jones,

President

For Chugach:

Bradley W. Evans,

Chief Executive OfficerMarch 23, 2010

March 23, 2010Date

Date





HERE Bargaining Unit


Contract Extension 2010 to 2013


February 23, 201009
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00482

- CR

Stephen Forrest Miller

v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 92

- CR

- 0889

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered th is cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 9, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
                                   This  schedule   contains  summary  financial
                                   information     extracted     from    Dynamic
                                   Associates,  Inc.  and  Subsidiary  March 31,
                                   1998 financial statements and is qualified in
                                   its entirety by  reference to such  financial
                                   statements
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000878146
<NAME>                        Dynamic Associates, Inc.

       
<S>                                                                    <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1998

<CASH>                                           911,161
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,919,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (1,580,050)
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,697,685
<PP&E>                                           429,706
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (115,142)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   29,012,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,312,211
<BONDS>                                          17,001,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         14,224
<OTHER-SE>                                       10,661,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     29,012,470
<SALES>                                          3,722,506
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,722,506
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,014,199
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               472,115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2,682,268)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     45,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (291,693)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2,727,268)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133720 & (13) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133720 

 COA: 275600 

Jackson CC: 05-001181-FH 

FRANKIE D. HALL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant's 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to remand 

is DENIED. 

d0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
No. 61165.

protest 309452-K (New York).

#### Seagram Distillers Company *v.*United States,

Richardson, Judge:

This suit involves the assessment of customs duties and internal revenue tax on three cases of Seagram’s Y. 0. in the total amount of $126.90. The suit has been submitted upon a stipulation entered into between the respective parties and reads as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant United States Attorney, subject to approval of this Court, as follows:

> The merchandise in issue herein involves three (3) cases of Seagram’s V. O. Canadian Whisky upon which customs duties and internal revenue tax were assessed in the total amount of $126.90. These three cases were part of an entry of 550 cases entered under Bond No. 47021. All the merchandise covered by this entry and bond were withdrawn over the period from August 14, 1951 to December 12, 1952. A total of 547 cases were liquidated free of customs duties and internal revenue taxes under the provisions of Public Law 271, 81st Congress, by reason of withdrawal for use by military personnel of foreign countries stationed in the United States. The remaining three cases, which are involved in this protest, were actually delivered to and received by the Canadian Embassy, Washington, District of Columbia.

> The reason for the assessment on these three cases is that at the time of liquidation, no letter of authority for the release of the three cases to the Canadian Military Attache, Canadian Embassy, under Public Law 271, 81st Congress, was present in the record before the liquidator. Since that time the effective letter of authority was located in the office of the Collector of Customs for delivery of the three cases to the Canadian Military Attache free of customs duties and internal revenue taxes.

> *409IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that had the letter of authority been before the liquidator at the time of liquidation, the allowance of the customs duties and internal revenue taxes on the three cases would have been made by the office of the Collector of Customs.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this protest be submitted to the Court on this stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact and in accordance with the provisions of 19 U. S. C. 196a (Public Law 271, 81st Congress) and T. D. 62332, the claim of the plaintiff, that the assessment of customs duties and internal revenue tax on the three cases of Seagram’s V. 0. was erroneously assessed, is sustained.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. P67/399.

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/5848 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered' by the foregoing protest consists of silk handkerchiefs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ashear Bros., Inc.*v. *United States (55*Cust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2582), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 61153.

protests 296514-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Nestle Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of soup mixes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Cresca Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 211, C. D. 1864), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
A89A1846.

#### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. FINA OIL & CHEMICAL COMPANY.

(390 SE2d 99)

Decided January 8, 1990.

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Sell & Melton, Carl E. Lancaster, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Hall, Bloch, Garland & Meyer, Benjamin M. Garland,*for appellee.

Carley, Chief Judge.

Acting pursuant to OCGA § 32-3-1 et seq., appellant-condemnor initiated condemnation proceedings and deposited, into the registry of the court, the sum of money estimated “to be just compensation for the land taken, including consequential damages to land not taken. . . .” OCGA § 32-3-6 (b) (5). Appellee-condemnee filed, with the superior court, a notice of appeal as provided by OCGA § 32-3-14. Thereafter, appellee, citing OCGA § 9-11-13 (e), sought permission from the trial court to file a counterclaim against appellant. In this proposed counterclaim, it was alleged that appellant’s agents, while engaged in the highway project, made unauthorized use of appellee’s remainder. For this alleged unauthorized use, appellee sought damages. The trial court granted appellee permission to file the counterclaim, but certified its order for immediate review. Appellant’s application for an interlocutory appeal was granted.

The trial court erred in allowing appellee to file the counterclaim in this condemnation action. “All of the procedures outlined in OCGA § 32-3-1 et seq. are geared exclusively towards answering questions relating to the propriety of the condemnation at hand or the value of the condemned land. Here [appellee’s] counterclaim seeks [damages for an alleged unauthorized use of its remainder]. As.such, the subject of the counterclaim lies outside the bounds of this type of condemnation. . . . The legislature made no provision for . . . damages, even of the constitutional variety, in this type of condemnation action. . . . [T]he trial court’s [allowance] of [appellee’s] counterclaim [was erroneous].” *Brooks v. Dept. of Transp.,*254 Ga. 60, 62 (2, 3) (327 SE2d 175) (1985).

*Judgment reversed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*