alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN T. LOWERY, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 245, 41 CMR 245

No. 22,593

February 20, 1970

*Lieutenant Donald B. Brant, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*246
      *Lieutenant Thomas F. Bastow,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CuRiam:

Of the eight charges of which the accused was originally convicted by special court-martial, only two have survived appellate review.1 The accused pleaded guilty to one of these charges (Additional Charge II and its specification). The specification of this charge alleges that the accused violated a brig order against “contraband” by “smuggling two cigarettes into his cell.” There is, however, substantial evidence to indicate that the guard stopped the accused before he entered the cell. It may be that the accused actually violated the regulation, but the evidence indicates he did not do the act alleged in the specification. As far as it appears from the record, the plea was inconsistent with the evidence, and it should have been vacated. United States v Stewart, 19 USCMA 58, 41 CMR 58 (1969).

The remaining charge (Charge II and its specification), to which the accused pleaded not guilty, alleged willful destruction of a chain valued at $1.00. The evidence indicated a

link of the chain was bent “outward more or less from the center so that the link could just slip right out,” and on this evidence the court-martial convicted the accused of “damaging” the chain. We need not try to plot a course through evidence that is now largely irrelevant to determine whether these findings of guilty are supportable. Neither need we consider whether the court of Military Review intended to affirm the findings of guilty of specification 3, Additional Charge I. The abundance of errors and irregularities, which have already been deemed sufficient to require reversal of at least six of the eight charges, convinces us that the entire proceedings fell far short of according the accused a fair trial. United States v Dolan, 17 USCMA 476, 38 CMR 274 (1968) ; United States v Yerger, 1 USCMA 288, 3 CMR 22 (1952).

The decision of the court of military review is reversed. The findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside, and all the remaining charges are ordered dismissed.

The decision of the Court of Military Review affirmed only two specifications, but its opinion leaves some doubt as to whether it actually intended to disapprove specification 3, Additional Charge I. The specification alleged an assault upon a guard in the execution of his office. The evidence indicated that while taking a shower, the accused performed a “side-kick” causing water to splash on the guard. In its findings, the court-martial excepted the allegation that the victim was in the execution of his office.
**EXHIBIT      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

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

|  | (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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                               |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Gaylen M. Brotherson                                                                                                                                      |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                    |   |   |        |
| Gaylen                  M. BrothersonChairman                  of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial                  OfficerFebruary 13, 2006 |   |   |   |
No. 46221.

#### Protests 41000-K, etc., of Columbia Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the wine in question is of the same character as that passed upon in *Columbia Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 175, C. D. 395) and therefore not subject to assessment as distilled spirits under the internal revenue law.
Exhibit 10.9(b)(b)

June 20, 2008

Ross G. Clark, Ph.D.

c/o Tercica, Inc.

2000 Sierra Point Parkway

Suite 400

Brisbane, CA 94005

Dear Ross:

In appreciation for all of your efforts on behalf of Tercica, Inc., the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Tercica,
Inc. has approved an amendment pertaining to all of your currently outstanding unvested Tercica stock options and restricted stock units.

Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in your Tercica employment agreement, Tercicas stock plans, or the forms of award agreements covering your currently outstanding Tercica stock options and restricted stock units (collectively, your Equity
Awards), if your employment with Tercica terminates due to your death prior to the effective date of the proposed merger of Tercica with Ipsen, S.A. and its affiliated entities pursuant to the merger agreement between the parties dated
June 4, 2008 (the Transaction), then your Equity Awards that remain unvested at your death (the Unvested Awards) will not automatically expire at such time, but, instead, if the Transaction becomes effective on or before
the latest date your vested Tercica stock options would otherwise expire under the original terms of your applicable option agreements as a result of the termination of your employment due to your death (the Extended Expiration Date),
then your Unvested Awards will be fully vested effective immediately prior to the effective date of the Transaction. If the Transaction does not become effective on or before the Extended Expiration Date, your Unvested Awards will expire on the
Extended Expiration Date. All other terms and conditions of your Equity Awards remain unaffected by this amendment.



|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Thank you again for all of your efforts,                                                    
|                                                                                            
|/s/ Stephen N. Rosenfield                                                                   
|Stephen N. Rosenfield Executive Vice President of
Legal Affairs; General Counsel & Secretary



|Cc: | John Scarlett
|--- | -------------

| | Bill Yates
| | ----------

| | Lori Urushima
| | -------------
No. 40225.

#### Protest 729646-G of Kwong Yuen & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel, wooden stands were held dutiable at 331⁄2 percent under paragraph 412. *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409) followed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAROLD B. SHAMBURGER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

M. DODSON, Correctional Sgt.; A.

MURPHY, Correctional Sgt.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-17071

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03745-JSW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Harold B. Shamburger, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction

FILED

JAN 02 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17071

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We

affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shamburger’s

motion to alter or amend the judgment because Shamburger failed to demonstrate

grounds for such relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) and noting that “[t]he overwhelming weight

of authority is that the failure to file documents in an original motion or opposition

does not turn the late filed documents into ‘newly discovered evidence.’” (citation

omitted)).

The scope of this appeal is limited to review of the July 15, 2011 order

denying Shamburger’s motion to alter or amend the judgment; accordingly, we do

not address other issues raised by Shamburger. 

AFFIRMED.
MVDT O W d C G d Di t ib tiWes Patterson, DOE Negotiating Committee, 14 Dec 2011MVDTOpenWoundCoreGradeDistributionImpact by setting standard at different dELl leves© ABBMonth DD, YYYY | Slide 1MVA Shipped by dELMVDTall BILsOpen Wound only–allBILs–OpenWoundonly100% of OW MVA shipped93% of OW MVA shipped27% of OW MVA shipped10% of OW MVA shipped10None includes allproducts shipped –7% of the MVA is7%oftheMVAisout-of-scope –mainly KVA>2500export and step-ups2dEL6 should bediscarded as lessthan 1% of thevolume reached thisefficiency level3M4 assumes agreater proportionth ffi i9% of OW MVA shipped6% of OW MVA shipped4% of OW MVA shipped<1% of OW MVA shippedasthe efficiencyimproves move todEL2 and above4One would expectthe H0/H1 to havegrown but this isgrownbutthisisdue to the relativepricing of M4 vsH0/H15...6...7...8...© ABBMonth DD, YYYY | Slide 2
No. 65566.

#### The Huffman Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protests 60/7656, etc. (Los Angeles).

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 plaintiff was sustained.
June 2, 1948

No. 52367.

petition 6412-R.

#### G. J. Kluyskens *v.*United States,

Abstract 51971. Plaintiff's application for rehearing denied;

Cole, J., dissenting.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE

JEFFRY N. GRIMES :

:

: No. 46 WM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11 th day of May , 2023, the Application for Extraordinary Relief is

DENIED, and the Applications for Intervention are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Justice Brobson notes his dissent.
Order filed February 9, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00896-CR

____________

JEREMY LEE GARZA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1260971

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due January 23, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P.

35.2. On January 17, 2012, all but volumes 6 and 9 of the reporter’s record were filed. 

We therefore issue the following order.

We order Judy Ann Fox, the official court reporter, to file volumes 6 and 9 of the 

record in this appeal on or before March 1, 2012.

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 10.1**

**AMENDMENT TO THE TESSERA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**

**THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED 2003 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN**

Pursuant to Section 15(a) of the Third Amended and Restated 2003 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended (this“Amendment”) as follows: 

The definition of “Fair Market Value” under Section 2(r) of the Plan shall be replaced with thefollowing definition: 

(r)    “Fair Market Value” means, as of any given date, the value of the CommonStock determined as follows: 

(i)    If the Common Stock is listed on any established stock exchange or a nationalmarket system, its Fair Market Value shall be the closing sales price for the Common Stock (or the closing bid, if no sales were reported) as quoted on such exchange or system for such date, or if no bids or sales were reported for such date, thenthe closing sales price (or the closing bid, if no sales were reported) on the trading date immediately prior to such date during which a bid or sale occurred, in each case, as reported in *The Wall Street Journal* or such other source as theAdministrator deems reliable; or 

(ii)    If the Common Stock is regularly quoted by a recognized securities dealer butselling prices are not reported, its Fair Market Value shall be the mean of the closing bid and asked prices for the Common Stock on such date, or if no closing bid and asked prices were reported for such date, the date immediately prior to suchdate during which closing bid and asked prices were quoted for the Common Stock, in each case, as reported in *The Wall Street Journal* or such other source as the Administrator deems reliable; or 

(iii)    In the absence of an established market for the Common Stock, the Fair Market Value thereof shall be determined in goodfaith by the Administrator. 

This Amendment to the Plan shall be effective as of March 14, 2007 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Tessera Technologies, Inc. has approved this Amendment to the Plan as of this 14th day of March, 2007.
jf ourtlj Court of

March 30, 2015

No. 04-14-00741-CV

Deidre Elane Sehamp,

Appellant

v.

Edward Mitchell,

Appellee

Trial Court Case No. 2013-CI-205S3

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See Tex. R. Al'l'. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on May 12, 2015, to the following panel: Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, and Justice Jason Pulliam. All parties will be

notified of the Court's decision in this appeal in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 48.

Either party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See Tex. R. API'. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on March 30, 2015.

'44+ Maralyn Barnanfi Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set my hand and a/fixed the seal of the court on this March 30, 2015.

e, Clerk'
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re James Wesley Groves and Keith Gross, Relators

Appellate case number: 01-15-00537-CV

Trial court case number: 2008-14866

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

Relators, James Wesley Groves and Keith Groves, have filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus challenging the trial court’s April 28, 2015 oral ruling. On October 8, 2015, Gross 

filed a verified emergency motion to stay enforcement of the trial court’s “order.” The motion is 

granted. The trial court’s April 28, 2015 order is stayed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). The stay 

is effective until disposition of the petition for a writ of mandamus or further order of this Court. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/Justice Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 9, 2015
F or me r P re sid e nt G e or g e W. B us h w a s n ame d a s th e orig ina l le a d r e sp on de nt i n th is 1 c a se . Purs ua

nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 25 (d), the Court a uto matic a lly

su bs tit ute s h is su c c e sso r, Pr e sid e nt B ara c k H . O bama , a s th e ne w l e a d r e sp on de nt. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OFCO LU M BIA
AHMED YASLAM SAID K UMAN , P etitioner , v. CivilAc ti on N o. 08 -1 23 5 (JD B) BARACK

H. OBAMA, et al., 1 Re spo nde nt s.
OR DE R Upon consider ation of petitioner' s motion t o stay the proc eeding s in this case, and the
e nt i r e r e c o r d

h e r e i n , i ti s h e r e b y OR

DE RE D that th e mot ion

is G RA NT ED . It is further OR DE RE D a s f

oll ow s: 1. Procee dings in this matter a re stayed until April 30, 2009; 2. Either par

ty may move to lift the stay

upon notice to the other

party ; and 3. The status conf

ere nce c urre ntly

schedule d for F ebrua

ry 11, 2009 is canc elled for this case. The status confe renc e shall proc eed a s to the other petitioners f or whom it is scheduled; 4. The pa

rties in this case a

re r elieved of

their oblig ations under the Ca se Mana g e me nt O rd e r u

nti l th e sta

y is l if te d; 5. The ter

ms of the September

11, 2008 Protective Or der a nd Procedur es for Couns e l A c c e ss t o D e ta ine e s sh a ll r e ma in i n e ff e c t.SO ORDERED.
/ s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Dated: F ebrua

ry 3, 2009
|   | (i) | a      review of the activities of the Servicer during the period January 1, 2008      through December 31, 2008 and of its performance under the Agreement has      been made under our supervision,and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | to      the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has      fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such      period. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      31, 2009 |   | /s/      Marc Kilbride            |
|---------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
| Date                |   | Marc      Kilbride                |
|                |   | Vice      President and Treasurer |
|                |   |                              |
|                |   |                              |

| March      31, 2009 |   | /s/      Linda Geiger    |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------|
| Date                |   | Linda      Geiger        |
|                |   | Assistant      Treasurer |
|                |   |                     |
|                |   |                     |

----
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2015 (the Report) of TICC Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Jonathan H. CohenName: Jonathan H. Cohen Date: August 6, 2015
### 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 DRAFT



### CITY OF LEBANON CITY COUNCIL Minutes, Regular Session, July 16,2014 City Hall-Council Chambers 7:00p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

MEMBERS ABSENT:

STAFF PRESENT: Mayor GeorgiaTuttle, Councilors Bruce Bronner, Carol Dustin, Erling Heistad, Karen Liot Hill, Heather Collier Vogel, StephenWood

Assistant Mayor Suzanne Prentiss, CouncilorNicole Corm en
CityManager Greg Lewis, City Clerk SandraAllard, Fire ChiefChris Christopoulos, Public Works DirectorMichael Lavalla, City Engineer Christina Hall, Airport Manager Rick Dyment

The meeting was calledto order at 7:03p.m. by MayorTuttle.



### I. 

### PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Councilor Hill led the Council in the Pledge.



### IX. NEW BUSINESS

C. Discussion and Recommendation to the United States Department of Transportation: Essential Air Service-CapeAir

(Councilor Hill returned to the Council atthis time.)

Andrew Bonney and Jacqueline Donohoo ofCape Air appeared. Mr. Bonney said Cape Airhas held the Essential Air Service contract at Lebanon Airport for the past six years. He saidthe Council took a riskby approvingthemthe first time. TheAirport went under 10,000 enplanements. Cape Airwas invited to increase enplanements to above the 10,000 level. He said there is no local financial matchrequired for this. He said USDOT is interested in local input. He said because ofcommunity demand, service to New York

was added, and that service has worked well. He said in 2012 and 2013, the Airport exceeded 10,000 enplanements. He said advance reservations are up 25% for the Boston route and 13% for the NewYork route over last year. He said Cape Air would like a new four-year contract.Lebanon City Council, Minutes, July 16,2014 Page 2 of2

1 Ms. Donohoo said Cape Airhas focused on integrating the airline into the community. 2 They have done advertising and have donated over $60,000 to local organizations in 3 tickets and cash. 

### 4 

### 5 

### Karen LiotHill movedthat the Lebanon City Council hereby recommends to the 6 United States Department ofTransportation that Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a 7 CapeAirbe selected to provideEssential Air Service to theLebanon Airportfor a 8 four-year term beginning December 1, 2014. 9 10 

### She further movedthat theLebanon City Council understands that CapeAir 11 

### operates its service utilizing 9-seat Cessna 402 aircraft and herebywaives its right to 12 

### receive Essential Air Servicewith 15-seat orlarger aircraft. 13 

### 14 

### Seconded by

### Stephen Wood. 15 16 Councilor Hill said the City did take a risk, but the service has gone well and has added 17 value to the community. Councilor Bronner said the service to New York is great. Mayor 18 Tuttle asked ifCape Air is looking into the ability to change terminals without going 19 through security again. Mr. Bonney said a connecting walkway betweenterminals is 20 planned. 

### 21 22 

### *The motionpassed 7-0.
No. 54106.

#### Wm. Filenes Sons Co. *v.*United States,

protest 960936-G (Boston).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 52664.

protests 485356-G, etc. (New York).

#### Comet Textile Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.