alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
14-4354

United States of America v. Kenner

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the

7th day of January, two thousand fifteen.

PRESENT:

GERARD E. LYNCH,

DENNY CHIN,

Circuit Judges,

JOHN G. KOELTL,

District Judge.*

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. 14-4354

TOMMY C. CONSTANTINE, AKA Tommy

C. Hormovitis., 

Defendant,

PHILLIP A. KENNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________

*

 The Honorable John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of New York, sitting by designation.
FOR APPELLEE: Saritha Komatireddy, Assistant United States

Attorney (Susan Corkery, Assistant United

States Attorney, on the brief) for Loretta E.

Lynch, United States Attorney, Eastern District

of New York, Brooklyn, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Richard Haley, Haley Weinblatt & Calcagni,

LLLP, Islandia, NY.

Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

New York (Joseph F. Bianco, J.). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Phillip A. Kenner appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion to

be released on bond pending trial on an indictment for mail fraud, wire fraud, and money

laundering. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349, 1956. We have considered Kenner’s arguments

and affirm the denial of his motion substantially for the reasons stated by the district

court. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

2
#### RYAN v. TEXAS-CANADIAN OIL CORPORATION, Limited.

No. 5692.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

Nov. 14, 1940.

Cantey, Hanger, McMahon, McICnight & Johnson and J. A. Gooch, all of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Weeks, Hankerson & Potter and Chas. F. Potter, all of Tyler, for appellee.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

Appellant, John C. Ryan, defendant below, asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his plea of privilege to be sued in the county of his residence, namely, Tarrant County, where the promissory note sued on, the basis of the suit, shows it to have been made payable to the Texas-Canadian Development Company instead .of to the plaintiff, Texas-Canadian Oil Corp’n, Limited, appellee herein.

Proof was made that defendant executed the note sued upon. The note, which was introduced in evidence, is payable to the order of Texas-Canadian Development Company. It is made payable at Tyler, Texas, in the county where this suit was filed. The endorsement on its back, which also was introduced in evi- • donee, reads: “Dec. 31, 1937. Pay to the order of the Texas Canadian Oil Corp., Limited. (signed) Texas Canadian Development Co., Inc., by W. A. Merryman, Sec.-Treasurer.” The note was in the possession of and then being exhibited by ¡plaintiff through its president who testified. We need not consider the provisions of Article 5935, Sec. 59. As stated in Bradley v. Trinity State Bank, 118 Tex. 274, 14 S.W.2d 810, 811: “The ownership of the note * * * are matters which go only to the merits of the action. An inquiry into those matters has no proper place in .determining the question of venue.” See, also, Vitopil v. Gray, Tex.Civ.App., 111 S.W.2d 1202. Under sub. 5 of Article *8061995, R.C.S., Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995, subd. 5, this suit is maintainable in Smith County.

The action of the court in overruling' defendant’s plea of privilege to be sued in Tarrant County, entered in 1939, is sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### STOCKMAN v. STATE.

No. 19962.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 12, 1938.

No appearance for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*268GRAVES, Justice.

Conviction for the theft of an automobile; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exceptions or statement of facts. There appears in the transcript an affidavit filed in the trial court setting up the inability of appellant to pay for a statement of facts or to give security therefor. There is nothing to show that s?dd affidavit was called to the attention of the trial judge. It follows that a reversal of the judgment on the ground that appellant has been deprived of a statement of facts would not be warranted. Fuller v. State, 98 Tex.Cr.R. 132, 264 S.W. 953; Beddingfield v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 235, 93 S.W.2d 738; Kelley v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 22, 91 S.W.2d 343; Moore v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 347, 104 S.W.2d 862.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.18









Exhibit
10.18




SUMMARY
OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION




Directors
who are not Kellwood employees are paid an annual cash retainer of $45,000, plus
$1,500 for each formal Board Meeting and $1,000 for each informal Board Meeting
attended. Informal Board Meetings are generally scheduled on the day before the
formal Board Meeting. These meetings allow for greater interaction and
discussion among Directors on significant Company issues. A portion or all of
these meetings have been conducted as executive sessions without management.
Additionally, non-employee Directors are paid annual committee membership fees
in the amount of $10,000 for each committee on which the Director is a member,
other than the Executive Committee. Committee chairs are paid an additional
annual cash retainer ($10,000 for the Audit Committee; $7,500 for each of the
Corporate Governance and Compensation Committees). Committee chairs are paid
$1,000 for each committee meeting attended, and other committee members receive
$1,000 per committee meeting attended in person and $750 if attended by
telephone. Directors are reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending
meetings.




Subject
to the terms of the 1995 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors as amended
and approved by shareowners on May 30, 2002, non-employee Directors receive the
following additional equity compensation:




Stock
Options: Non-employee Directors are annually granted a 10-year option to
purchase 2,000 shares of Kellwood’s common stock. The options are granted on the
first business day after the Annual Meeting of Shareowners at which the person
was first elected or continued as a non-employee Director. These options become
exercisable one year after the date of option grant, and the exercise price for
each share granted to a non-employee Director is 100 percent of the fair market
value of the shares subject to option on the date of the option grant. The
exercise price may be paid by check or by the delivery of shares of common stock
then owned by the participant.




Stock
Awards: Non-employee Directors are annually granted 100 shares of Kellwood’s
common stock. The grant is made on the first business day after the Annual
Meeting of Shareowners.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.1.1  


 
 

Schedule Identifying Substantially Identical Agreements To The Debt Service Reserve Letter Of Credit And Reimbursement Agreement    
    


1.    The
Debt Service Reserve Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2005 by and among Homer City OL1 LLC and Union Bank of California, N.A., as issuing
bank and agent, in an amount of up to $13,588,520.83. 



2.    The
Debt Service Reserve Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2005 by and among Homer City OL2 LLC and Union Bank of California, N.A., as issuing
bank and agent, in an amount of up to $9,059,013.88. 


3.    The
Debt Service Reserve Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2005 by and among Homer City OL3 LLC and Union Bank of California, N.A., as issuing
bank and agent, in an amount of up to $4,529,506.94. 


4.    The
Debt Service Reserve Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2005 by and among Homer City OL4 LLC and Union Bank of California, N.A., as issuing
bank and agent, in an amount of up to $4,529,506.94. 


5.    The
Debt Service Reserve Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2005 by and among Homer City OL5 LLC and Union Bank of California, N.A., as issuing
bank and agent, in an amount of up to $4,529,506.94. 


6.    The
Debt Service Reserve Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2005 by and among Homer City OL6 LLC and Union Bank of California, N.A., as issuing
bank and agent, in an amount of up to $4,529,506.94. 


7.    The
Debt Service Reserve Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2005 by and among Homer City OL7 LLC and Union Bank of California, N.A., as issuing
bank and agent, in an amount of up to $2,264,753.47. 


8.    The
Debt Service Reserve Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2005 by and among Homer City OL8 LLC and Union Bank of California, N.A., as issuing
bank and agent, in an amount of up to $2,264,753.47. 











QuickLinks


Schedule Identifying Substantially Identical Agreements To The Debt Service Reserve Letter Of Credit And Reimbursement Agreement
#### STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS v. HATTER.

No. 2200.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

April 4, 1940.

Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., Geo. W. Barcus, Wm. J. Fanning, and Lloyd Armstrong, Asst. Attys. Gen., Shelton & Shelton, of Austin, and Jos. W. Hale, of Waco, for appellant.

*172Kyle Vick, Gene McNamara, and Gene Maddin, all of Waco, for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

Lou Hatter brought this suit in McLen-nan county against the Texas State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers for writ of mandamus to compel the Board to . issue to him a certificate of registration as a “professional engineer” and to enjoin the members of the Board from interfering with or hampering the plaintiff in the practice of his profession as a professional engineer during the pendency of the suit. A trial before a jury resulted in judgment for the plaintiff. The Board has appealed.

The defendant filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Travis county, and we have today reversed the judgment of the trial court in refusing to sustain the plea of privilege. Consequently, the judgment in this, the main suit, must be reversed .for a like reason.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to the lower court to transfer the suit to a district court of Travis county as prayed.

TIREY, J., took no part in the consideration .and disposition of this case.
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 10.39

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 3
                                     TO THE
                            LODGIAN, INC. 401(K) PLAN
           (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2003)


      Pursuant to the power to amend reserved in Section 12.1 of the Plan, and
as authorized by the Board of Directors of Lodgian, Inc., Lodgian, Inc. (the
"Plan Sponsor") hereby amends the Plan, effective as of the dates herein
indicated as follows:

                                       1.

      Effective as of the execution date of this Amendment No. 3, Section 2.3 is
hereby amended by deleting the last sentence of the present provision and
substituting the following:

      "Each other former Employee who is reemployed shall be treated as a new
      Employee for participation and vesting purposes upon reemployment."

                                       2.

      Appendix B to the Plan is hereby amended effective as of September 1, 2003
by the addition of the following to provide for credit for service with an
employer acquired by Lodgian or an Affiliate:

      o  "Any employer, all the assets or shares of stock of which are
         acquired by Lodgian, Inc. or an Affiliate thereof."

      Except as herein amended, the provisions of the Plan shall remain in full
force and effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan Sponsor, on behalf of itself and the
Participating Employers has caused this Amendment No. 3 to be executed by its
duly authorized officer, as of the 28 day of April, 2005.

                                LODGIAN, INC.

                                By: s/ Daniel E. Ellis

                                Title:  Senior Vice President & General Counsel

                                      1
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 In connection with the Annual Report of PetroQuest Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2009 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Charles
T. Goodson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, 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. /s/Charles T. Goodson
Charles T. Goodson
Chief Executive Officer
February 26, 2010 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOUTJE PANTOUW; ELLY LAE

WORANG,

 Petitioners,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Jr., Attorney

General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-74105

Agency Nos. A079-609-520

A079-609-521

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 13, 2015** 

Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Joutje Pantouw and Elly Lae Worang, natives and citizens of Indonesia,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

MAY 20 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. CanoMerida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We dismiss in part and deny in

part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions related to asylum

and equitable tolling of the one-year filing requirement because they failed to raise

them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The BIA denied petitioners’ motion to reconsider, finding they failed to

demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of persecution to qualify for withholding

of removal. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005); Halim v. Holder, 590

F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence

of individualized risk of harm under a disfavored group analysis to establish a

well-founded fear of future persecution); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066

(9th Cir. 2009) (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a

considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would

an asylum applicant”). We reject petitioners’ contention that their motion to

reconsider should have been granted for submission of more evidence. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). We also reject petitioners’ requests that the court

2 12-74105
reconsider its stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution or require the

agency to revisit this issue.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

3 12-74105
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00281-CV

Elicia Bailey, Appellant

v.

Jeremy Gasaway, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 10-3175-FC4, HONORABLE JOHN McMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

The Clerk of this Court filed appellant’s notice of appeal on April 26, 2016, and

the clerk and reporter’s records were due on June 6, 2016. On July 13, 2016, the Clerk of this

Court sent notice to appellant that the records were overdue and requested that appellant make

arrangement for payment and submit a status report on or before July 25, 2016. Appellant

responded to this Court’s request by letter, stating that she had made partial payments on the

records and that she planned to complete the payments by the end of August 2016. She also

requested an extension until the middle of September for the records to be filed with this Court.

This Court orders that appellant’s deadline to pay for or make arrangements for the

records is September 30, 2016. No further extensions will be granted. Appellant is directed to

submit a status report with this Court by that date regarding this appeal. If appellant fails to do so,

this Court will dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
It is ordered August 29, 2016.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland

2
#### Leonard Leap, Respondent, v Thomas Finnen et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to permanently enjoin the defendants from conducting a new election for the office of Second Assistant Chief of the Bellmore Fire Department, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered March 2, 1990, which granted the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and *433ordered that the plaintiff immediately be appointed to the office of Second Assistant Chief.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

It is well established that in order to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the moving party has the burden of showing that (1) he is likely to ultimately succeed on the merits, (2) he will suffer irreparable injury, and (3) a balancing of the equities is in his favor *(see, Weissman v Kubasek,*112 AD2d 1086). We find that the plaintiff herein failed to make a sufficient showing to warrant the granting of preliminary injunctive relief.

Town Law § 176 provides a mechanism for the members of fire departments to nominate a person to the office of Assistant Chief and to submit the name of the nominee to the Board of Fire Commissioners for approval. Subdivision (11-b) of section 176 further provides, in pertinent part: "The board of fire commissioners at its organizational meeting in the month of January next succeeding the making of such nominations shall consider the same and shall appoint such persons to the offices to which they have been respectively nominated or, *if a nomination is not approved the board of fire commissioners shall call another meeting of the members of the fire department at which a new nomination shall be made to take the place of any nomination not approved,*which procedure shall continue until a full set of officers is approved” (emphasis added).

Based on the plain language of this statute, the Board of Fire Commissioners was not required to give a reason for its rejection of the plaintiff’s nomination *(see, Matter of Russo v Board of Fire Commrs.,*Sup Ct, Suffolk County, May 31, 1967, Tasker, J.; *Matter of Gorgone v Board of Fire Commrs.,*Sup Ct, Suffolk County, Mar. 10, 1983, Bruscia, J.). Moreover, the defendants’ actions were not in violation of the plaintiff’s State and Federal due process rights *(Matter of Gorgone v Board of Fire Commrs., supra,*citing *Matter of Cassidy v Municipal Civ. Serv. Commn.,*37 NY2d 526, 529).

It is evident, therefore, that the plaintiff did not sufficiently establish his likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, the court erred in determining that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm and in finding that the balance of the equities were in favor of the plaintiff. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
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








In connection with the Annual Report of Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund Plus (the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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 Fund.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street VIII, Inc., as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund Plus,


A Limited Partnership








Date:           June 29, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Geospatial Holdings, Inc. 10-Q






Exhibit 32.2
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350
 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geospatial Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas R. Oxenreiter, 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, as amended; and
  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: November 15, 2010

By:

/s/ Thomas R. OxenreiterName:

Thomas R. OxenreiterTitle:

Chief Financial Officer