alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1657

ROBERT WHITEHEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN VAN LLOYD, Attorney at Law; BARR, WARNER, LLOYD & HENIFIN LAW FIRM, in their official and individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-03-3637-9) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 23, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Gerald Chambers, Jr., TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Whitehead appeals the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his tort action in which he alleged legal malpractice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Whitehead v. Lloyd , No. CA-03-3637-9 (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
***Exhibit 10.28***
Amendment No. 1
          Amendment No. 1 dated as of October 10, 2003 (this “Amendment”) to theletter agreement dated October 28, 2002 between Walter F. Schneider(“Schneider”) and Del Global Technologies Corp. (the “Company”), a copy ofwhich is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Agreement”).
          WHEREAS, Schneider and the Company have previously entered into theAgreement;
          WHEREAS, as of October 10, 2003, the Company has appointed Schneider asits President and Chief Executive Officer; and
          WHEREAS, the Company and Schneider have determined that it is in theirbest interests to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth and the Companyhas duly approved this Amendment and authorized its execution and delivery;
     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
     1.     All capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein,shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.
     2.     The Company and Schneider hereby acknowledge and agree that theappointment of Schneider as President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany shall not be deemed a substantial change in Schneider’s duties,functions, responsibilities or authorities for purposes of paragraph 8 of theAgreement.
     3.     This Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws ofthe State of New York and for all purposes shall be governed by and construedin accordance with the laws of such State applicable to contracts to be madeand performed entirely within such State.
     4.     This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and eachof such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, andall such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.
     5.     Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in fullforce and effect.
-56-

 

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed as of the date first setforth above.           DEL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP.           By:           /s/ Suzanne M. Hopgood            Name: Suzanne M. Hopgood      Title: Chairman/s/ Walter F. Schneider          Walter F. Schneider    
-57-
# C_2015137EN.01002901.xml

| 25.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/29

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2015/C 137/06)

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1000 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) | The People’s Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 325, 5.12.2013, p. 1). | 7.12.2015 |
| Undertakings | Commission Implementing Decision (2013/707/EU) (OJ L 325, 5.12.2013, p. 214). |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells)

The People’s Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 325, 5.12.2013, p. 1).

7.12.2015

Undertakings

Commission Implementing Decision (2013/707/EU) (OJ L 325, 5.12.2013, p. 214).

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Poverty
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-TPS.44 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030/763-3762 (fax)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  MONDAY, NOV. 7, 2011 Supplemental Poverty Measure Research The Census Bureau, with assistance from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and in consultation with other appropriate agencies and outside experts, introduces research on a new measure of poverty to complement the official measure, which has been in use since the 1960s. The official measure will continue to be produced every year and be used to assess eligibility for government programs and determine funding distribution. The supplemental poverty measure, on the other hand, is intended to better reflect contemporary social and economic realities and government policy effects and thus provide a further understanding of economic conditions and trends. This report presents estimates of the prevalence of poverty at the national level in 2010 -- overall and for selected demographic groups -- for both the official and supplemental measures. Internet address: 
<https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/news_conferences/2011-11-04_spm_webinar.html>. **No news release associated with this product. Tip Sheet only.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


    We hereby consent to the use in this Amendment No. 6 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-1 of our reports dated July 21, 2000, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedules of Integrated Telecom
Express, Inc., which appear in such Registration Statement. We also consent to
the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statement.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, CA
August 16, 2000
|   | (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 Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                             | Summit Hotel Properties, Inc.                                                      |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |                                                                               |
| Date:  August 15, 2011 | By: /s/  Daniel P. Hansen                                                |
|                             | Daniel P. HansenPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |
##### 



THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Twelve Months Ended December 31(Millions of Dollars)
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002Earnings:Pretax earnings
    
    $
    482
    
    
    $
    426
    
    
    $
    214
    
    
    $
    397
    
    
    $
    534Fixed charges
    
    
    299
    
    
    
    280
    
    
    
    294
    
    
    
    294
    
    
    
    322Net earnings
    
    $
    781
    
    
    $
    706
    
    
    $
    508
    
    
    $
    691
    
    
    
    856Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    278
    
    
    $
    267
    
    
    $
    280
    
    
    $
    284
    
    
    $
    319Adjustments
    
    
    21
    
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    10
    
    
    
    3Fixed charges
    
    $
    299
    
    
    $
    280
    
    
    $
    294
    
    
    $
    294
    
    
    $
    322Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.61
    
    
    
    2.52
    
    
    
    1.73
    
    
    
    2.35
    
    
    
    2.66
#### In re ESTATE of Charles Monroe BRYANT, also known as C. M. Bryant, deceased. T. L. BRYANT, Gladys Hooker, J. M. Bryant, M. D. Bryant, Bessie Glover and Joseph Franklin Bryant, Appellants, v. Belle Williams BRYANT, Appellee.

No. 7497.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Feb. 9, 1967.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1
 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 results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ John L. Shermyen

John L. ShermyenChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Peter SchofieldPeter SchofieldChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3693 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3693

                          [Report No. 103-456]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse under construction in Denver, 
       Colorado, as the ``Byron White United States Courthouse''.





103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3693

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
To designate the United States courthouse under construction in Denver, 
       Colorado, as the ``Byron White United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse being constructed through renovation 
of the old post office building in Denver, Colorado, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Byron White United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Byron White United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 12, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS FOUND ON PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE SILICON
IMAGE, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          42,183
<SECURITIES>                                    20,283
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (101)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,831
<PP&E>                                           4,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,901)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,617
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,033
<SALES>                                         12,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,410
<CGS>                                            4,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (33)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,402)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (172)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,574)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
#### REDWING CARRIERS, INC., Petitioner, v. Lillian URTON, Respondent.

No. 36709.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 7, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1968.

John W. Boult, of Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Tampa, for petitioner.

Peyton T. Jordan, Jr., Tampa, for respondent.

DREW, Justice.

The appellate court in this case1 reversed a judgment entered on a verdict for defendant in a negligence action. The court, in an opinion containing a full statement of the facts and point of law in question, concluded that reversible error was committed by failure to instruct the jury on the “range of vision” rule, although plaintiff did not submit a proper charge on the point. Certi-orari has been granted on the ground of conflict with the decision in Jayess Investments Ltd. v. Barbee Foods, Inc.2 that our rules of practice “require a party to request a proper instruction in order to claim error for the failure to instruct.”

While we recognize the propriety in some circumstances of a review of the sufficiency of instructions in the light of specific issues developed by the evidence, and the independent duty of a trial court in this regard,3 we believe from a study of the record in this cause that the judgment should have been affirmed. Objections by plaintiff at the conclusion of the framing of the charges were directed solely to the court’s rejection of plaintiff’s “submitted instruction,” and assignments of error on appeal were equally limited. In this situation we think the appellate court erred in reversing on the ground that the general charge was fatally defective for lack of specific explanation of the rule in question.

The decision on this point is accordingly quashed and the cause remanded with directions that the judgment be affirmed.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

1

. D.C.A. 2nd Dist., 200 So.2d 859.

2

. D.C.A. 3rd Dist., 155 So.2d 853.

3

. Cf. order and opinion In re Standard Jury Instructions, April 19, 1967, 198 So.2d 319.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132389 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132389 COA: 269701 Wayne CC: 69-152676 ARCHIE LEE O’QUINN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 4, 2007

Clerk
#### Alfred D. BIELEY and Peggy Bieley, Petitioners, v. duPONT, GLORE, FORGAN, INC., a Delaware corporation, etc., Respondent.

No. 44724.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1, 1974.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

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 Dunhuang Treasures Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Mork, Chief Executive and 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  May 13, 2011
By  /s/ Jeremy Mork
-----------------------------
    Jeremy Mork
    Chief Executive and  Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50491

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARVIN DONALD STEELE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:11-CR-449-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marvin Donald Steele challenges the district court’s decision denying his 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. A defendant may withdraw his plea before 

sentencing if he establishes “a fair and just reason for requesting the 

withdrawal.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d)(2)(B). Seven factors are relevant to the 

determination: (1) whether the defendant asserts his innocence, (2) whether 

the Government will be prejudiced, (3) whether the defendant delayed filing 

* 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

September 24, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50491 Document: 00512780265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2014
No. 13-50491

the motion, (4) whether withdrawal will “substantially inconvenience” the 

court, (5) whether the defendant had “close assistance” of counsel, (6) whether 

the plea was knowing and voluntary, and (7) whether withdrawing the plea 

will waste judicial resources. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th 

Cir. 1984). We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 645 (5th Cir. 2009). The “court 

abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly 

erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id.

Steele challenges his guilty plea principally by relying on claims that he 

did not understand the plea agreement or the plea hearing, that his attorney 

coerced him to plead guilty, and that he is innocent. The district court rejected 

his testimony regarding these claims as not credible and found that the 

evidence of his guilt was “overwhelming.” The court “articulated the 

appropriate standard” under Carr and “carefully applied this standard to the 

facts.” United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1991). As in 

Bounds, Steele relies on “conclusory allegations that are clearly refuted by the 

record.” Id. We find no abuse of discretion, as he has not shown that the 

district court denied the motion based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous 

factual finding. See McKnight, 570 F.3d at 645.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 13-50491 Document: 00512780265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2014