alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:02-cv-04417-AB Document 45 Filed 10/28/2003 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04417-AB Document 45 Filed 10/28/2003 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04417-AB Document 45 Filed 10/28/2003 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04417-AB Document 45 Filed 10/28/2003 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04417-AB Document 45 Filed 10/28/2003 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04417-AB Document 45 Filed 10/28/2003 Page 6 of 6
No. 65460.

#### Borneo Sumatra Trading Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/7527, etc. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA   GRACE LAWRENCE  

Plaintiff, v. 

 TRANS UNION LLC CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

Defendant. 

C.A. NO: 02-CV-4440  

  ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE   Came on to be considered this day the motion of the defendant for continuance of the trial 

in the above styled and numbered cause, presently set for March 15, 2004.  The Plaintiff does not 

object to the continuance.  After considering the emergency motion and the reasons cited in 

support thereof, it is the opinion of the Court that the motion should be, and it is GRANTED, 

and the trial of this cause now set to begin on March 15, 2004, is CONTINUED until further 

notice of the Court. 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED this, the _____ day of February    , 2004. 

__________________________        BRODY, J 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB     Document 48-4      Filed 02/17/2004     Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.3


                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                       1997 STOCK-BASED INCENTIVE PLAN OF
                      INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION
                        EFFECTIVE AS OF FEBRUARY 2, 1998


     The 1997 Stock-Based Incentive Plan of International Multifoods 
Corporation (the "Plan") is amended, effective as of February 2, 1998, 
as follows:

     1.     The first and second sentences of Section 2 of the Plan are 
amended to read as follows:

"Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 11 hereof, an aggregate of 
1,250,000 shares of Stock shall be available to Participants under the 
Plan.  Of such shares of Stock, a maximum of 250,000 shares shall be 
available for issuance pursuant to Awards of Restricted Stock and 
Restricted Stock Units."

     2.     The first sentence of Section 3(e) of the Plan is amended 
to read as follows:

"No Eligible Employee may be granted any Award or Awards under the Plan, 
the value of which Award or Awards is based solely on an increase in the 
value of the Stock after the Date of Grant thereof, for more than 200,000 
shares of Stock in the aggregate in any calendar year."
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Page 1 of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the 

Eastern District of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

RAFAEL OJEDA-ONTIVEROS 

Case No: 2:04-CR-00388-08-MCE 

USM No: 15375-097 

Date of Original Judgment: 07/19/2007 

Date of Previous Amended Judgment: Hannah R. Labaree, Assistant Federal Defender 

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

 Upon motion of the defendant the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the court under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10 

and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is: 

DENIED. GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in

the last judgment issued) of 210 months is reduced to 168 months . 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated 07/31/2007 shall remain in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Order Date: 01/12/2016 

 ___________________ _____________________________________________________ 

 Judge’s signature

Effective Date: MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ___________________ _____________________________________________________ (if different from order date) Printed name and title

 

Case 2:04-cr-00388-MCE Document 322 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00238-CR

RODERICK A. WILLIAMS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

I respectfully concur with the majority opinion. Williams’s sole issue is that 

his sentence was excessive and disproportionate, but he did not object to his 

sentence at the time it was imposed or complain about it in a motion for new trial. 

We have held on numerous occasions that this type of claim must be preserved 

at the trial court level. See Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.—Fort 

 

1See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.
2

Worth 2009, pet. ref’d); Acosta v. State, 160 S.W.3d 204, 211 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 2005, no pet.); see also Cisneros v. State, No. 02-06-00103-CR, 2007 WL 

80002, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 23, 2007, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (collecting cases); cf. Burt v. State, 396 S.W.3d 574, 

577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“A sentencing issue may be preserved by objecting 

at the punishment hearing, or when the sentence is pronounced.”). The court of 

criminal appeals has explained, 

Preservation of error is a systemic requirement on appeal. If an 

issue has not been preserved for appeal, neither the court of 

appeals nor this Court should address the merits of that issue. 

Ordinarily, a court of appeals should review preservation of error on 

its own motion, but if it does not do so expressly, this Court can and 

should do so when confronted with a preservation question.

Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452, 473–74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (quoting Ford v. 

State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 532–33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)); see Clay v. State, 361 

S.W.3d 762, 765 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).

Because Williams did not raise his complaint in the trial court, the 

complaint is forfeited. I would overrule his issue based on preservation. 

Because the majority instead reaches the merits of Williams’s complaint, I 

respectfully concur.

/s/ Sue Walker

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

MCCOY, J., joins.
3

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 24, 2014
**Proposed USSGL Budgetary Account Revisions**

**Revised USSGL Accounts Effective FY 24:**

**Account Title**:	Indefinite Appropriation - Upward Adjustments

**Account Number**:	411910

**Normal Balance**:	Debit

**Definition**:	The amount of budgetary authority derived from the General Fund of the U.S.

 Government to cover upward adjustments where a prior year appropriation act is cited. ~~This~~

~~USSGL is not applicable to no-year Treasury accounts.~~

**Justification:**Based on OMB Circular A-11, Appendix F, Section 18, this account can

currently be used with no-year Treasury accounts.

Draft                                                             Page 2 of 2                                IRC Handout February 15, 2024
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 21, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00716

- CV

Kevin McBride, Appellant

v.

Seton Family of Hospitals d/b/a Seton Medical Center, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on October 25, 2018

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s order

. Because appellant is

indige nt and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
No. P68/256.

protests 64/5657, etc. (New York).

#### Franklin Lock & Pulley Mfg. Corp. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A”, covered by the foregoing protests, consist of padlocks, not cabinet locks; that the items of merchandise marked “B” consist of cabinet locks; and that said items marked “A” or “B” are of plate or disc tumbler construction similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669), the claims of the plaintiff were sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Corus Bankshares, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
J. Glickman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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.


March 21, 2003                           /s/ ROBERT J. GLICKMAN
                                         ---------------------------
                                         Robert J. Glickman
                                         Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Corus Bankshares, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tim H.
Taylor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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.


March 21, 2003                           /s/ TIM H. TAYLOR
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Tim. H. Taylor
                                         Chief Financial Officer


                                       23
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BLACKWATER SECURITY, |

CONSULTING, LLC, ET AL. |

Plaintiffs, |

| CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-6020

v. |

|

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES |

INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. |

Defendants. |

ORDER

AND NOW, this _____ day of March, 2007, upon consideration of the Motion for 

Admission of Thomas T. Locke, Esquire as counsel pro hac vice for Defendant Fidelity and

Casualty Company of New York (“Fidelity”) (Doc. 35), and the Motion for Admission of

Rebecca Woods, Esquire as counsel pro hac vice for Fidelity (Doc. 36), IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED and DECREED that the Motions are GRANTED. Thomas T. Locke, Esquire and

Rebecca Woods, Esquire are admitted in this case as counsel pro hac vice for Fidelity. 

BY THE COURT:

/S/ Petrese B. Tucker

__________________________

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 39 Filed 03/20/2007 Page 1 of 1

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 39

Dockets.Justia.com
J. CAMPBELL BARKER

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL

(512) 936-0596

CAM.BARKER@TEXASATTORNEYGENERAL.GOV

November 24, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk

Court of Appeals for the Third Judicial District of Texas

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711-2547

Re: No. 03-15-00401-CV, In re Xerox Corp.

No. 03-15-00252-CV, Nazari v. State of Texas v. Xerox Corp.

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

Pursuant to the Court’s order of November 20, 2015, the parties 

in the two above-cited causes have agreed on an order and division of 

oral argument, as follows:

No. 03-15-00401-CV, In re Xerox Corporation (30 min. total):

 Xerox: 12 min.

 State of Texas: 15 min.

 Xerox rebuttal: 3 min.

No. 03-15-00252-CV, State v. Nazari (30 min. total):

 Nazari: 10 min.

 Xerox: 4 min.

 State of Texas: 13 min.

 Nazari rebuttal: 3 min.

Additionally, please let this letter serve as notice that Raymond 

C. Winter will present oral argument on behalf of the State of Texas in 

No. 03-15-00401-CV, and that the undersigned, J. Campbell Barker, 

will present oral argument on behalf of the State of Texas in No. 03-15-

00252-CV.

 

Post Of fice Box 12548, Austin, Texas 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www.texasattor neygeneral.gov 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00252-CV

7971932

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

11/24/2015 1:27:16 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/24/2015 1:27:16 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Letter to Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk

November 24, 2015

Page 2

Sincerely,

/s/ J. Campbell Barker

J. Campbell Barker

Counsel for the State of Texas

cc: All counsel of record

Post Office Box 12548, Austin, Texas 78711-2548 • (512) 463-2100 • www.texasattorneygeneral.gov
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CSK
Auto Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending May 4, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Maynard L. Jenkins, hereby certify in my
capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report fully complies with the
    requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and                                       
|
| | (2) The information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and result of operations of the Company.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ MAYNARD L. JENKINS 
| |                        
| | Maynard L. Jenkins     
| | Chief Executive Officer

June 17, 2003
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined t hat this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20625 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONALD QUINONEZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 94-CV-2906

July 8, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donald Quinonez-Martinez argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for abuse of procedure. We have viewed the record, the opinion of the

district court, and the briefs, and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore,

the denial of Quinonez-Martinez’s § 2255 motion is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States v. Quinonez-Martinez , No. H-94-2906 (S.D. Tex. June 1, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
# sec5_custodialact_2021

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-15	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SCA - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2020
**UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549**

---

**FORM 10-Q/A**

---

(Mark One)

**[X]       QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 14(d) OF THE
             SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2000**

**OR**

**[  ]  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 14(d) OF THE SECURITIES
     EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**For the transition period from ________to _________**

**Commission file number 000-24647**

**Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.**
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)



|**Delaware**                                                   | **77-0328533**                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------
|(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

**2952 Bunker Hill LaneSanta Clara, California     95054**(Address of Principal Executive Offices including Zip Code)

**(408) 727-4400**(Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)







Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 14 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.    YES [X]    NO [  ]

The number of outstanding shares of the registrant's Common Stock, $0.001 par
value, was 65,889,847 at November 8, 2000.







The Registrant hereby amends Item 6 contained in , and Exhibit 27.1 filed with, the
Registrant's Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2000.



ITEM 6. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K.



(a) Exhibits





|Exhibit |                        
|------- | -----------------------
|Number  | Description of Document
|        |                        
|27.1    | Financial Data Schedule
|        |                        
|        |                        

(b) Reports on Form 8-K

On July 18, 2000, Terayon filed a report on Form 8-K amending Terayon's Registration Statement
Nos. 333-91823, 333-95357 and 333-37978 and any prospectus and post-effective amendments filed
thereon to revise the sections entitled Prospectus Summary and Risk Factors.



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements Section 13 or 14(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in County of Santa Clara, State of
California, on the 14th day of November, 2000.



TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.





By: /s/ RAY M. FRITZ		Date: November 14, 2000

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

Ray M. Fritz

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)





---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

JOE NERSESYAN, AKA Ovsep

Nersesyan, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10511

D.C. No. 

2:16-cr-00108-GEB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District

Judge.

Defendant Joe Nersesyan pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a machine

gun and was sentenced to 51 months in prison. On appeal, he contests the district

court’s application of a higher base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)

FILED

JUN 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
for being a “prohibited person” in possession of a firearm. See United States v.

Purdy, 264 F.3d 809, 813 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that an unlawful drug user is

a person who “took drugs with regularity, over an extended period of time, and

contemporaneously with his . . . possession of a firearm”). He contends that the

record does not establish that he was using drugs at the time of the weapon

possession. We affirm.

The record supports the district court’s finding that Nersesyan was both an

unlawful drug user and a drug addict when he was charged with possessing a

machine gun. This renders him a “prohibited person” within the meaning of the

sentencing guidelines. Police officers found Nersesyan’s unlawful machine gun on

October 26, 2015, inside a car he had been borrowing for more than two months. 

In that car, the officers also found methamphetamine and recently used drug

paraphernalia that had been within Nersesyan’s reach. About six months later, in

May 2016, Nersesyan admitted to probation that he had a history of addiction that

led him to a relapse earlier in 2015, and that he was currently taking unprescribed

opiates daily. That same month, he tested positive for using methadone. A few

weeks after that, he stated in a call from jail that he “needs meth,” “has a problem,”

and has “been using heroin.”

2
Given the evidence of ongoing drug use from 2015 through June 2016, as

well as Nersesyan’s recurrent issues with drug addiction, there was more than a

preponderance of evidence supporting the district court’s conclusion that

Nersesyan was both an unlawful drug user and a drug addict when he possessed the

machine gun. Evidence that he was using drugs at the exact moment he was found

with the gun was not required.

AFFIRMED.

3
# sec5_balsh_2024

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin 2023-04	&"Arial,Bold"&10V BS - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10March 2023
No. 49602.

#### Protest 36965-K of Kwong Yick & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The merchandise was classified and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of said cited case the merchandise at bar, found to contain salt, was therefore excluded from paragraph 5. The protest was sustained to this extent. From the uncontradicted testimony that the oil in question serves only as a medium in which to pack the ducks and that after they are sold the oil is thrown away, the ducks were held dutiable on the net weight thereof. Citing *Von Bremen*v. *United States*(57 Treas. Dec. 679, T. D. 44000).