alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. 2245 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To include New Zealand in the list of foreign states whose nationals are eligible 

for admission into the United States as E–1 and E–2 nonimmigrants if United 

States nationals are treated similarly by the Government of New Zealand. 

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 ‘‘Knowledgeable Innovators and 

Worthy Investors Act’’ or the ‘‘KIWI Act’’. 

SEC. 2. NONIMMIGRANT TRADERS AND INVESTORS. 

For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(E) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)), 

New Zealand shall be considered to be a foreign state described 

in such section if the Government of New Zealand provides similar 

nonimmigrant status to nationals of the United States. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,503                   9,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,084                   1,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (396)                   (126)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,467                  11,460
<PP&E>                                           3,239                   3,029
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,352)                 (2,259)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,530                  14,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,031                   5,587
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,814                   3,814
<COMMON>                                           134                     131
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,552                   5,069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,530                  14,601
<SALES>                                          2,772                   3,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,772                   3,444
<CGS>                                            1,158                   1,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,625                   3,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (94)                    (72)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,917)                 (1,834)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.30)                  (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.30)                  (0.15)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ICT Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vincent A. Paccapaniccia, Executive Vice President, Corporate Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
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; and

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



|                 |  |                                    
|---------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|November 7, 2008 |  | /s/ Vincent A. Paccapaniccia       
|                 |  | Vincent A. Paccapaniccia           
|                 |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate
|                 |  | Finance and Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 14, 2013

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., District Judge

*

No. 12-1104

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NICOLAS GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:10-cr-01055-1

William J. Hibbler,

Judge.

O R D E R

The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is GRANTED. The panel’s opinion and judgment

are VACATED. The parties shall file new briefs addressing the following matters:

1. Whetherthe four-part test for Rule 404(b) evidence in our case law is useful, or

whether the court should adopt a different test, such as one that asks: (a)

whether the proposed evidence is relevant to any specifically identifiable and

disputednon-propensityissue(s), andif so,howthe evidence is relevant tosuch

issue(s) without relying on propensity inferences; and (b) whether, under Rule

403, the evidence would be unduly prejudicial?

The Honorable Robert L. Miller, Jr., of the Northern District of Indiana, sitting by

*

designation.
No. 12-1104 Page 2

2. Whether admissionof evidenceunderRule 404(b) shouldrequire theuseofjury

instructions that identify the specific permissible use(s) ofthe evidence, such as

language along the lines of Instruction No. 3.11 in the 2012 version of this

court’s Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions?

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that supplemental briefing shall proceed as follows:

1. The opening supplemental brief of defendant-appellant Gomez is due on or

before July 12, 2013.

2. The responsive brief of plaintiff-appellee United States is due on or before

August 9, 2013.

3. Appellant may file a supplemental reply brief no later than August 23, 2013.

Counsel shall submit thirty-five (35) copies of all briefs and appendices and any

citations of additional authority.

By separate order at a later date, the court will schedule oral argument en banc.

Important Scheduling Notice !

Notices of hearing for particular appeals are mailed shortly before the date of oral argument. Criminal appeals are scheduled

shortly after the filing of the appellant's main brief; civil appeals after the filing of the appellee's brief. If you foresee that you

will be unavailable during a period in which your particular appeal might be scheduled, please write the clerk advising him

of the time period and the reason for such unavailability. Session data is located at

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/cal/calendar.pdf. Once an appeal is formally scheduled for a certain date, it is very difficult

to have the setting changed. See Circuit Rule 34(e).
Filed 6/26/15 P. v. B aptist CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HALLET ALBER T BAPTIST

,

Defendant and Appellant. B 261019

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA407472 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Rand S.

Rubin and Henry J. Hall , Judge s . Affirm ed

.

Laura Schaefer , unde r appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________

Defendant entered a plea of no contest to violating Penal Code secti o n 4573 and

admitted a strike allegation

. The plea was based on a February 1, 2013 incident in which

police officers conducting a strip search in jail found rock cocaine on defendant. The trial

court sentenced defendant to a second strike term of four years. The trial court later2

denied defen dant’s request to be resentenced pursuant to Proposition 47 because that act

did not amend or affect Penal Code section 4573

.

Defendant did not apply for or obtain a certificate of probable cause, but filed a

timely appeal. We appointed counsel to repres ent defendant on appeal. After

examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this

court to independently review the record. On April 30, 2015 , we advised defendant he

had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to

consider. To date, we have received no response.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has

fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. ( Pe ople v.

Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109

– 110; People v

. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed

.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

BENDIX

, J. *

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD , P. J.

CHANEY, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Cou rt, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant

to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-17-00307-CV 

In the Interest of A.A., a Child § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

From the 323rd District Court 

of Tarrant County (323-103402-16) 

February 8, 2018 

Opinion by Justice Pittman 

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Mark T. Pittman________________ 

 Justice Mark T. Pittman
#### MAGEE v. STATE.

No. 18660.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1937.

J. Mitch Johnson, of San Saba, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession for the purpose of sale in a dry area of liquor containing alcohol in excess of 4 per cent, by weight; penalty assessed at a fine of $100.

The state’s attorney before this court concedes that the information is insufficient to charge an offense under the authority of Whitmire v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 94 S.W.(2d) 742, in which case the holding was to the effect that the information must allege that an election had been held in the particular county which resulted in the prohibition of the act charged. The principle announced has been followed in several recent cases; namely, Grady v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 97 S.W.(2d) 472; Coleman v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 97 S.W.(2d) 701; Johnson v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 95 S.W.(2d) 419; Kelly v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 98 S.W.(2d) 998. See, also, Privitt v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 98 S.W.(2d) 204.

For the reason stated, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 9, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK 

### [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 03- 1481 5

D. C. Docket N o. 02-00017 -CR- FT M-29-DN F

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Plaintiff-A ppellee,

ve rs us MARK LEE FOREMAN,
D ef en da nt- A ppe lla nt.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

(A ug us t 9, 200 5)
Be fo re T JO FL A T , P RY O R a nd A L A RC O N *, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ *Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc on, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by desig nation.11 th C ir . R. 36 -1 pr ov ide s: 1 Whe n th e c ou rt

de te rm ine s th a t any

of the fo llo wi ng c ir c ums tanc e s e xist: ( a ) jud g m e n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rti s b a s e d o n f i n d i n g s o f

f a c tt h a ta r e n o tc l e a rl y e rr on e ou s; (b ) the e vid e nc e in s up po rt of a jur y ve rd ic t is su ff

ic ie nt; (c) the orde r of a

n administrative ag ency

is supported by

substantial evidence on the rec ord as a

whole; (d) summary

judgme nt, direc ted verdict, or j udg ment on the pleading s is supported by the re cord; (e) judgme nt has bee n enter ed without a re versible e rror of law; a nd an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, the judgme n t o r order may be af firmed or enfor ced w ithout opini on.

2 

### PE R CU RIA M:
A F F IR M ED . S ee 11t h C ir . R . 36- 1. 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statements of operations of Altera
Healthcare Corporation filed with the Company's Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements and related footnotes.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          28,046
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,125
<PP&E>                                         834,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                (34,851)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 976,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,423
<BONDS>                                        642,704
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       179,164
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   976,233
<SALES>                                        274,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               274,922
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  247,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,399
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,127
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        3,837
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,290
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50




</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 3, 2022

No. 04-22-00342-CV

IN RE Elizabeth Ann MCGARRAUGH

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

After considering the petition, the record, and real party in interest’s response, this court 

concludes relator did not show she is entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ 

of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The stay imposed on June 14, 2022 is 

LIFTED. 

It is so ORDERED on August 3, 2022.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of August, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020CI01792, styled In the Interest of A.K.M. and G.M.M., pending in the 

285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Tina Torres presiding.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO J. MARTINEZ,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

ADOLFO GONZALEZ, San Diego Chief

Probation Officer,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 19

- 55440

D.C. No.

3:17

- cv

- 01760

- WQH

- AGS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 2, 2020 * *

Pasadena, California

Before: HURWITZ and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, ** * District

Judge.

Francisco Martinez was convicted in California state court on two counts of

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

*** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

commodities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code § 29536

. The

district court dismissed Martinez’s subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition but granted

a certificate of appealability on two issues . We have jurisdiction over Martinez’s

appeal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a)

. R eview ing the district court’s denial

of the writ de novo, see Poyson v. Ryan , 879 F.3d 875, 887 (9th Cir. 2018 )

, we

affirm.

1. In the last reasoned state court decision, t he Cal ifornia Court of Appeal

,

applying the test in Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)

, reasonably

determined that there was sufficient evidence to support Martinez’s commodities

fraud convictions. See Coleman v. Johnson , 566 U.S. 650, 651 (2012). Taken in the

light most favorable to the State, the evidence showed that Martinez made false

statements about the past returns generated by the foreign currency trading company

with which he was associated and about the company’s ability to mitiga te risk on

future returns

. The evidence also showed that clients of the company relied on these

statements

.

2. The Court of Appeal also reasonably determined that the trial court’s

failure to instruct the jury on the scienter required for commodities fraud under

California law

— knowledge of the statement’s falsity

— was harmless under

Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 22 (1967)

. T he Court of Appeal ’s conclusion

was not base d on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C.3

§ 2254(d) ; People v. Martinez , 10 Cal. App. 5th 686, 711

- 13 (2017)

.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

I, Donald L. Drakeman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that the Annual Report of Medarex, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report ofMedarex, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Medarex, Inc. 

 

By: /s/ Donald L. Drakeman 

Name:    Donald L. Drakeman 

Title:    President and Chief Executive Officer 

Date:    March 28, 2003 

 

I, Christian S. Schade, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Medarex, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Annual Report of Medarex, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Medarex, Inc. 

 

By: /s/ Christian S. Schade 

Name:    Christian S. Schade 

Title:    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 

Date:    March 28, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,230,647
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,904,560
<ALLOWANCES>                                   188,308
<INVENTORY>                                  9,938,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,100,007
<PP&E>                                       4,569,952
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,122,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,347,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,956,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       294,717
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,723,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,347,813
<SALES>                                     24,201,163
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,369,527
<CGS>                                       12,778,664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,778,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,703,935
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             401,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,007,606
<INCOME-TAX>                                   616,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            391,606
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   391,606
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>