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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH D. SMITH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0497 LKK DAD P

vs.

G.J. GIURBINO,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this action. In findings and

recommendations filed March 24, 2005, the undersigned has recommended that petitioner’s

motion to hold proceedings in abeyance be granted and that petitioner be ordered to present all

unexhausted claims to the California Supreme Court in a state habeas petition to be filed within

thirty days after this action is stayed. Petitioner has requested a thirty-day enlargement of time to

file his state exhaustion petition. Petitioner also requests that the court relieve him of the

obligation to file monthly status reports and require respondents to do so instead.

The March 24, 2005 findings and recommendations have been submitted to the

district judge for consideration. However, the findings and recommendations have not been

adopted and this action has not been stayed. If the district judge issues an order adopting the

findings and recommendations, petitioner’s thirty-day time limit for filing a state exhaustion

Case 2:04-cv-00497-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

petition will begin to run on the date of that order. Under these circumstances, petitioner is not in

need of an enlargement of time, and his request will be denied.

If all of the March 24, 2005 recommendations are adopted, petitioner will be

required to file and serve a monthly status report in which he describes the status of his state

exhaustion proceedings. Petitioner should indicate in his first status report the date on which he

mailed, or will mail, an exhaustion petition to the California Supreme Court. Subsequent status

reports should include such information as the case number that was assigned to his state habeas

petition, the receipt of any notice or order from the California Supreme Court, and his

submission of any additional filings to the state court. A status report may reflect that petitioner

received no notices or orders from the state court during the monthly period. Petitioner is not

required to obtain status information from the California Supreme Court before he prepares his

status report for this court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s April 22, 2005 request

for enlargement of time and for modification of the pending findings and recommendations is

denied.

DATED: May 24, 2005.

DAD:13

smit0497.req

Case 2:04-cv-00497-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alliant Energy Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Patricia L. Kampling

Patricia L. Kampling

Vice President-Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

 

February 27, 2009
REGISTRATION

69592-19 

Vol.3 
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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Pages 76-78 - *Confidential Statements of Formula may be entitled to confidential treatment*
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                            DAIN RAUSCHER CORPORATION
                      COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                 YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                            ---------------------------------
                                                                             1999          1998         1997
                                                                            -------      -------      -------
<S>                                                                        <C>          <C>          <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:
   Net income ........................................................      $66,590      $ 7,990      $49,275
                                                                            =======      =======      =======


   Weighted average common shares outstanding ........................       12,456       12,404       12,277
                                                                            =======      =======      =======


Basic earnings per share .............................................      $  5.35      $  0.64      $  4.01
                                                                            =======      =======      =======



EARNINGS PER SHARE ASSUMING DILUTION:
   Net income ........................................................      $66,590      $ 7,990      $49,275
                                                                            =======      =======      =======

Weighted average number of common and dilutive potential common shares
      outstanding:

      Weighted average common shares outstanding .....................       12,456       12,404       12,277
      Dilutive effect of stock options (net of tax benefits) .........          423          463
                                                                                                          579
      Shares credited to deferred compensation
         plan participants ...........................................          585          304          204
                                                                            -------      -------      -------
Weighted average number of common and
      dilutive potential common shares outstanding ...................       13,464       13,171       13,060
                                                                            =======      =======      =======

Diluted earnings per share ...........................................      $  4.95      $  0.61      $  3.77
                                                                            =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>












                                       45
#### John Henry JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph M. BROOKS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7713.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 17, 2001.

John Henry Johnson, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John Johnson appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Johnson v. Brooks,*No. CA-00-777 (E.D.Va. Nov. 22 & Dec. 22, 2000). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.*
No. 58927.

protests 168761-K, etc. (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58500.

protests 227764-K, etc. (New York).

#### Omega Import Co. and Hudson Shipping Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*423Opinion 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 protests were dismissed, and the matters were 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)).
#### Robert Earl WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7717.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 17, 2001.

Robert Earl Washington, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Earl Washington seeks to appeal the .district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Washington v. Angelone,*No. CA-00-1482 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 23, 2000; entered Oct. 26, 2000). We deny Washington’s motion to supplement the record because the proposed documents are already contained in the record. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                                         MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
                                          MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
                                            COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                          COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS (UNAUDITED)
                                                   (dollars in thousands)



                                FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED           FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                        March 30, 2007                      March 31, 2006
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                            CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 15,949           $ 18,708        $ 15,949           $ 18,683
                               ========           ========        ========           ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    15,470             15,949          15,470             15,949
                               --------           --------        --------           --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $ 15,470           $ 15,949        $ 15,470           $ 15,949
                               ========           ========        ========           ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17


</TABLE>
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, Baker v. Aramark Corp. 

1-SF/7309698.1

1

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

TERRI KEYSER-COOPER 

Pro Hac Vice 

Nev. Bar #3984 

100 N. Arlington Ave. #10F 

Reno, NV 89501 

Tele (775) 337-0323 

DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT 

California Bar #181348 

849 Almar Avenue, Suite C403 

Santa Cruz, CA 95060 

Tele (831) 458-3440 

________ 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Baker 

et. al. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

MICHAEL BAKER, WILLIE ANDREWS, 

RICHARD ELEY and TROY VARGAS, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

ARAMARK CORPORATION, ARAMARK 

UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL, INC., 

ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER 

APPAREL GROUP, INC., JEFF BLACK, 

DON CLOWES, DOUG BATTISTA, WILL 

POLIFKA, GREG LEWIS, TIM BICKERTON 

and DAVE KOCH, 

 Defendants. 

Civ. Case No. S-04-549 DAD 

STIPULATION FOR AND ORDER OF 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

/ 

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys Terri Keyser-Cooper and Diane K. Vaillancourt, and 

Defendants, by and through their attorneys Cecily Waterman and Eric Meckley of Morgan, Lewis and 

Bockius, LLP, stipulate and agree that all proceedings in the above-captioned matter be dismissed with 

prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Confidential Settlement Agreement; 

notwithstanding the foregoing it is understood and agreed that, Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd will 

Case 2:04-cv-00549-DAD Document 162 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, Baker v. Aramark Corp. 

1-SF/7309698.1

2

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

retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of said Agreement. The parties and their attorneys further 

stipulate that the signature of only one of the attorneys on behalf of each of plaintiffs and defendants is 

required herein. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

Dated November 15, 2005 DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT 

TERRI KEYSER-COOPER 

By: /S/ 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Baker, Willie 

Andrews, Richard Eley and Troy Vargas 

Dated: November 18, 2005 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

By: /S/ 

Cecily A. Waterman 

Eric Meckley 

Attorneys for Defendant ARAMARK Uniform 

& Career Apparel, Inc., et al. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: November 21, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-00549-DAD Document 162 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, Baker v. Aramark Corp. 

1-SF/7309698.1

2

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

Ddad1/orders.consent/baker0549.dism 

Case 2:04-cv-00549-DAD Document 162 Filed 11/22/05 Page 3 of 3
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10498 Conference Calendar

__________________ TOMMY J. HAMILTON, On behalf of himself and all others so similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHN C. VANCE, Individually and in his official capacity as district attorney of Dallas County, Texas; ROBERT DOE; JOHN DOES; JANE DOES; SALLY ZOE; BEN CLICK, Individually and in his official capacity as chief of police of Dallas County, Texas., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CV-291-X

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove thatNo. 95-10498 -2- his conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Otherwise, such a claim for damages is not cognizable under § 1983 and must be dismissed. Id

. If Tommy J. Hamilton's complaint is construed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action stemming from an unconstitutional imprisonment, his claims are not cognizable, as he has failed to demonstrate that his conviction has been set aside or otherwise called into question. Heck , 114 S. Ct. at 2372. By Hamilton's own admission, he has not pursued any appeals or habeas remedies. Therefore, Hamilton cannot seek damages under § 1983 because he cannot demonstrate that his conviction has been invalidated, reversed, or otherwise called into question. Although Hamilton's complaint could be properly construed as a petition for federal habeas relief, because he has admitted that he has not pursued any appeals or state habeas actions regarding his conviction, he cannot demonstrate that his claim was fairly presented to the state courts. Without this demonstration, Hamilton cannot show that he is entitled to federal habeas consideration. The district court did not err in construing Hamilton's complaint as a federal habeas petition and in dismissing that petition for failure to exhaust. Dispensa v. Lynaugh , 847 F.2d 211, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.
* 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. 02-20087

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFONSO CORNEJO-JAIMES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-278-ALL

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

August 20, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfonso Cornejo-Jaimes (Cornejo) appeals his sentence for

the offense of illegal reentry following deportation after having

been convicted of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Cornejo contends that the district court

plainly erred when it delegated to the probation officer the

authority to determine his ability to pay the costs of drug abuse

detection. Cornejo’s argument is foreclosed by our opinion in
No. 02-20087

-2-

United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2002).

Cornejo also argues that the “aggravated felony provision”

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional on its face and as

applied. Cornejo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but

asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90 (2000). He seeks to preserve

his argument for possible further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984. 

Moreover, Cornejo’s indictment did allege that he had been

deported after having been convicted of an aggravated felony, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Thus, to the extent that he

contends that the indictment failed to allege his prior

aggravated felony conviction, his argument lacks factual support

in the record. 

AFFIRMED.
EX-4.63





Exhibit 4.63


SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT TO

EXCLUSIVE BUSINESS CONSULTANCY SERVICE AGREEMENT



This supplementary agreement (“Supplementary Agreement”) to the Exclusive Business Consultancy
Service Agreement is made on 1 January, 2007, in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), by
and between:





	(1)	 	T2CN Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., located at 12F, 418, Gui Ping Road,
Shanghai, with Deng Ruen-Zeh as the legal representative (hereinafter called “T2CN”)
	 
	(2)	 	Shanghai T2 Advertisement Co., Ltd., located at Suite 3A01, 665, Zhang Jiang Road, Pudong,
Shanghai, with Cheng Yen-Ching as the legal representative (hereinafter called “T2”).




(T2CN and T2 are hereinafter referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”.)



Pursuant to the provisions of the Exclusive Business Consultancy Service Agreement made by the
Parties on 15 November 2006, the Parties hereby enter into this Supplementary Agreement as follows:



The Consultancy Service Fee that T2 shall pay T2CN on a quarterly basis for Year 2007 (1 January to
31 December, 2007) under Clause 3.1 and Clause 3.2 of the Exclusive Business Consultancy Service
Agreement shall be calculated as follows: Amount of the Consultancy Service Fee = 30 % of T2’s
Operating Income in aggregate.



This Supplementary Agreement shall prevail in case of any inconsistency with the Exclusive Business
Consultancy Service Agreement.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	T2CN Information Technology


(Shanghai) Co., Ltd.	 	 	 	Shanghai T2 Advertisement Co., Ltd.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signed by:

	 	/s/ Guo Jun Wei 	 	 	 	Signed by:	 	/s/ Min Ji 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

 	 	Name:  Guo Jun Wei	 	 	 	 	 	Name:  Min Ji	 	 
	 	 	Title:     Authorized Representative	 	 	 	 	 	Title:     Authorized Representative
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- Training
- Upcoming CARS Changes Webinar Sessions

# Upcoming CARS Changes Webinar Sessions

Audience:

All CARS Users

----

Location:

Online

----

Duration:

May 30, 2017 | 2:00pm - 3:00pm ETMay 31, 2017 | 2:00pm - 3:00pm ETJune 14, 2017 | 9:30am - 10:30am ET June 15, 2017 | 11:00am - 12:00 Noon ETJune 27, 2017 | 2:00pm - 3:00pm ET

----

Cost:

Free

----

Hosted by:

Governmentwide Accounting Customer Relationship Management Division

----

Point of Contact:

 valerie.coleman@fiscal.treasury.gov

## Event Details:

Governmentwide Accounting (GWA) is hosting **a  series of drop in webinar sessions** to provide guidance on the upcoming  changes to the Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS).

In these sessions, we’ll provide valuable  information on the CARS 2.2 Enhancements, and how this enhancement will benefit  Federal Program Agencies (FPAs).  The  webinar will discuss reconciling reclassified transactions and added reporting  capabilities to query account balances.

There are five dates available for your  convenience.  Please register using the form shown below.   The  webinar URL and dial-in number will be sent to you after you have registered.

### Registration Form

Fields marked with an asterisk(*) are required. 

**Available Sessions**

Last modified 08/08/21