alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to lst Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United Stat es Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit

No. 03-1971 JANICE W. STEVENSON, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL OF LAW AT ANDOVER, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Torruella, Circuit Judge , Cyr and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges .
Janice W. Stevenson on brief pro se. Peter M. Malaguti on brief for appellees.

March 30, 2004-2- Per Curiam . The order of dismissal is affirmed substantiallyfor the reasons recited in the district court's opinion dated May 7, 2003. Pla intiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of her First Amendme nt rights plainly fails for lack of state action. See , e.g. , Rendell-Baker v. Kohn , 457 U.S. 830, 837-43 (1982); Logiodice v. Trustees of Maine Central Inst. , 296 F.3d 22, 26-29 (1 st Cir. 2002), cert . denied , 537 U.S. 11 07 (2003); Krohn v. Harvard Law School , 552 F.2d 21, 23-24 ( 1 s t Cir. 1977). Her remaining claims have not been pursued on appeal andthus have been abandoned. See , e.g. , K earneyv. Town of Wareham , 316 F.3d18, 22 (1 st Cir. 2002). We add that the district court's disposition of those claims appears unexceptionable in any event. Affirmed.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4810 

To direct the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and 

Information to carry out activities relating to the development and maintenance of a broadband inventory map through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and not through an 

agreement with any other agency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2018 

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio (for himself and Mr. GUTHRIE) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to carry out activities relating 

to the development and maintenance of a broadband 

inventory map through the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration and not through an 

agreement with any other agency. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Making Available 

5 Plans to Promote Investment in Next Generation NetVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:57 Jan 18, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4810.IH H4810

ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4810 IH

1 works without Overbuilding and Waste Act of 2018’’ or 

2 the ‘‘MAPPING NOW Act of 2018’’. 

3 SEC. 2. BROADBAND INVENTORY MAP. 

4 (a) TO BE CARRIED OUT BY NTIA.—The Assistant 

5 Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Informa6 tion shall carry out subsection (l) of section 6001 of the 

7 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (47 

8 U.S.C. 1305) through the National Telecommunications 

9 and Information Administration and not through a memo10 randum of understanding or other agreement with any 

11 other agency. Nothing in this subsection shall be con12 strued to prohibit the Assistant Secretary from consulting 

13 with another agency in carrying out such subsection (l). 

14 (b) NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.—No ad15 ditional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry 

16 out this Act. This Act shall be carried out using amounts 

17 otherwise authorized. 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
### The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Eastern District of Missouri. _____________ No. 96-3260

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Maurice Safford, also known * as Maurice Smith, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: November 19, 1996 Filed: November 27, 1996

_____________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Maurice Safford, an African-American, challenges the 120-mont h sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty t o 1 possessing cocaine base (crack) with intent to d istribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.
At is sue is Safford's offense-level calculation, which was drive d from the penalty sche me set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1), providing the same penalties for given amounts of crack and 10 0 times greater amounts of pow der cocaine. Safford argues that the 100-to-1 ratio has a disproportionate adverse effect on African-Ameri cans; Congress's rejection of the Sentencing Commission'spropos edamendment to the Sentencing Guidelines--which would hav e

eli minatedthe 100-to-1 ratio and equalized the penalties for crack an d powder cocaine--evidences a discriminatory purpose on Congress's part in mainta iningthe penalty scheme; and, thus, continued application of th e scheme violates his Fifth Amendment equal protection and due proces s rights.
We recently rejected similar arguments in United States v. Carter , 91 F.3d 1196, 1198-99 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0347

_____________________________

JOSEPH HOSSMAN,

Appellant,

v.

BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL 

BOARD/BROWARD COUNTY 

SCHOOL BOARD,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims.

Ileana Forte, Judge.

Dates of Accidents: June 25, 2002; October 30, 2003.

March 14, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

William F. Souza of Law Offices of William F. Souza, P.A., North 

Miami Beach, for Appellant.

Laurence Leavy of Laurence Leavy and Associates, Fort 

Lauderdale, for Appellees.
#### 4145 Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Manuel Brown, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 11, 1959.

*Ruth Ranson*for appellant.

*Paul F. Starace*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Where a landlord notifies a tenant of decontrolled premises that if he holds over after the expiration of his lease, he will have to pay an increased rental and the tenant does continue to remain in the premises after the term expires, then the law will imply from such holding over an agreement by the tenant to accept such new terms. The fact that the tenant may have expressed his objections to such an increase will be of no avail if after the expiration of his term he continues in possession. The landlord is not precluded from seeking an increase by his acceptance of rent on account.

The final order should be modified by increasing landlord’s recovery for rent for November, 1958 to $225, together with appropriate costs in the court below, and as so modified affirmed, with $25 costs of this appeal to the landlord.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Hecht and Aurelio, JJ.

Final order modified, etc.
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




Summary of Compensatory Plans and Arrangements Approved April 7, 2005




On April 7, 2005, the Compensation and Equity Ownership Committee of the board of directors of
Harmonic Inc. (“Company”) approved the Harmonic 2005 Bonus Plan (the “Plan”).



The participants in the Plan include the following executive officers of the Company:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Name	 	Position	 
	Anthony J. Ley
	 	Chairman of the board of directors, President & Chief Executive Officer
	Robin N. Dickson
	 	Chief Financial Officer
	Israel Levi
	 	Senior Vice President, Operations and Quality
	Patrick Harshman
	 	President, Broadband Access Networks
	Yaron Simler
	 	President, Convergent Systems






The payment of bonuses under the Plan for all participants is based on performance against revenue, corporate operating income and division contribution margin targets. The relative weighting of each
metric varies between corporate and division participants, such that corporate participant bonuses are based 67%
on overall corporate performance and 33% on the performance of the divisions. Division participant
bonuses are based 33% on overall corporate performance and 67% on the performance of their respective divisions.



The target bonus of Anthony J. Ley is 80% of base salary. The target bonus for each other executive
officer is 60% of base salary.



In addition, a minimum corporate operating income threshold must be exceeded for any bonus
payout to be made, and a specified minimum achievement against each of the target metrics is required for any
payout on that element. In the event that the target metrics are surpassed, a participant
in the Plan may be awarded a bonus payment up to a maximum of 200% of such participant’s target bonus.



The final bonus for each participant, including executive officers, calculated as described above,
is subject to downward adjustment, based upon performance against individual performance objectives.



Participants in the Plan must remain employed through the date that the bonus is paid in order to
qualify for a bonus payment. Harmonic, at its sole discretion, retains the right to amend, supplement, supersede or
cancel the Plan for any reason, and reserves the right to determine whether and when to pay out any bonus amounts,
regardless of the achievement of the performance targets.
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, James Durward, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of UNITECH ENERGY CORP.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)  presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 28, 2005
/s/ James Durward
-------------------------
By: James Durward, CFO
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4585 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4585

 To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from relying on the 
   Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the matter of restoring internet 
 freedom to adopt, amend, revoke, or otherwise modify any rule of the 
                              Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2017

  Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from relying on the 
   Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the matter of restoring internet 
 freedom to adopt, amend, revoke, or otherwise modify any rule of the 
                              Commission.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Save Net Neutrality Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. RULEMAKING IN RELIANCE ON INTERNET FREEDOM NPRM PROHIBITED.

    Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal 
Communications Commission may not rely on the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in the matter of restoring internet freedom that was adopted 
by the Commission on May 18, 2017 (FCC 17-60), to satisfy the 
requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code, for 
adopting, amending, revoking, or otherwise modifying any rule (as 
defined in section 551 of such title) of the Commission.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                       CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with this Quarterly Report of Verdisys, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dan
Williams, Principal 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.


                              /s/ DAN WILLIAMS
                              ------------------------------------
                              Name: Dan Williams
                              Title: Principal Executive Officer
                              Date: November 19, 2003


A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Verdisys, Inc. and will be retained by Verdisys, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________
No. 99-11263

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

KATHERINE FURLEY, also known as Katherine Hackleman,

Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee,

TIM DEAN, Individually and as next friend on behalf of James Randolph Dean,

Movant-Appellant,

versus

ALEDO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CV-416-A

May 23, 2000

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

-2- PER CURIAM: *

Katherine Furley appeals the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to state a

claim. The district court did not err in dismissing Furley’s suit. See Doe v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. , 168 F.3d

806, 819-22 (5 th Cir. 1999), cert. granted
, 120 S. Ct. 494 (1999). The district court also did not abuse its

discretion in

denying her motion to amend her complaint, as her claims were foreclosed by D oe and thus were

futile. S ee Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist
., 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5 th Cir. 1994). Because Furley’s suit was

dismissed, the district court also did not err in denying as moot Tim Dean’s motion to intervene in the suit. S ee
Flory v. United States
, 79 F.3d 24, 26 (5 th Ci r. 1996). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4854 

To amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to provide 

additional resources to State and local prosecutors, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2018 

Mr. CARTER of Texas (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. 

POE of Texas, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SWALWELL of California, 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, and Mr. RATCLIFFE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 

2000 to provide additional resources to State and local 

prosecutors, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice Served Act 

5 of 2018’’. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4854 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROSECUTION OF DNA COLD CASES. 

2 (a) DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PRO3 GRAM.—Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimi4 nation Act of 2000 (34 U.S.C. 40701) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(9) To increase the capacity of State and local 

8 prosecution offices to address the backlog of violent 

9 crime cases in which suspects have been identified 

10 through DNA evidence.’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the 

12 following: 

13 ‘‘(5) ALLOCATION OF GRANT AWARDS FOR

14 PROSECUTORS.—For each fiscal year, not less than 

15 5 percent, but not more than 7 percent, of the grant 

16 amounts distributed under paragraph (1) shall, if 

17 sufficient applications to justify such amounts are 

18 received by the Attorney General, be awarded for 

19 purposes described in subsection (a)(9), provided 

20 that none of the funds required to be distributed 

21 under this paragraph shall decrease or otherwise 

22 limit the availability of funds required to be awarded 

23 to States or units of local government under para24 graph (3).’’. 

25 (b) PROSECUTION OF COLD CASES.—Of the amounts 

26 made available to the Attorney General for a DNA AnalVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 21, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4854.IH H4854

ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4854 IH

1 ysis and capacity enhancement program and for other 

2 local, State, and Federal forensic activities for the purpose 

3 described in section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimi4 nation Act of 2000 (34 U.S.C. 40701) under the heading 

5 ‘‘STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE’’ 

6 under the heading ‘‘OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’’ 

7 under the heading ‘‘DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’’ in 

8 fiscal years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, not less than 

9 5 percent, but not more than 7 percent, of such amounts 

10 shall be provided for grants for prosecutors to increase 

11 the capacity of State and local prosecution offices to ad12 dress cold cases involving violent crime, where suspects 

13 have been identified through DNA evidence. 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
#### Guardianship of MADDOX. COON v. MADDOX.

No. 34546.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 24, 1953.

John Allen Phillips, II, Durant, for plaintiff in error.

Porter Newman, Durant, for defendant in error.

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

The plaintiff in error has appealed from a judgment entered against him in the-trial court and on the 15th day of April, 1950, *1076he filed his brief. The authorities in the brief reasonably- sustain the allegations of error. The defendant in error has filed no brief and has offered.no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances, as stated in Gooldy *v.*Hines, 186 Okl. 583, 99 P.2d 498, it is not the 'duty of this court to search the. record for some theory upon which to sustain the action of the trial court but the cause may be reversed. and remanded with directions,

The cause is reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the judgment entered for the defendant in error and grant a new trial.

HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, ARNOLD, O’NEAL and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010(the Report) of MCG Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Stephen J. Bacica, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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/ STEPHEN J. BACICAName:

Stephen J. BacicaTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate

November 2, 2010