alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-41008 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ENRIQUE ORDUNA-PERALES, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-893-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Enrique Orduna-Perales appeals the sentence imposed f o llowing the

r e v ocation of his s upervised release. Specifically, he c hallenges the distric t court’s reimposition of a $100 special assessment. We r e v i e w revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3742’s “plainly unreasonable” s t a n d ard. United States v . Miller , 634 F.3d 8 41, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). A review of the transcript f rom the revocation hearing reflects that the district c ourt’s rei m p osition of the special assessment is contrary to the oral U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 19, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-41008 Document: 00512279847 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2013No. 12-41008

pronouncement and evidenc e p r e sented at the h earing. Therefore, as the Government concedes, a conflict exists between t he oral and written judgments. In such a case, t he oral pronouncement controls. See United S tates v. Martinez , 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is modified to strike the reimposition of t he $100 special assessment so that the written judgment is in c onformance with the oral pronouncement, and we affirm the judgment a s so modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; see a lso United States v. Hermoso , 484 F. App’x 970, 972–73 (5th Cir. 2012). AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

2 Case: 12-41008 Document: 00512279847 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2013
Charles CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4496

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:17mj0439

:

-vs- Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

:

ROBERT F. DAMERON,

:

Defendant.

REMOVAL AND COMMITMENT ORDER

This case came on to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(c)(3). Defendant

herein was arrested in this District upon a warrant issued upon a Supervised Release

Violation Petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

in Case No. 5:13-CR-87-JMH-2. Defendant appeared in open Court on September 19,

2017, and after being advised of his rights waived his right to an Identity hearing. The

Court found the waiver to be knowing and intelligent and accepted same. As to the

Government’s Motion for Pretrial Detention, Defendant also waived a detention hearing

and preliminary hearing in this District and requested the hearings be held in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

IT IS ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE REMOVED TO THE United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky where the charges are pending

against him, for any other proceedings, as ordered by that court.

September 21, 2017

 s/ Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington

 United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

and the 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 Annual Report of Cost
Plus, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Barry J. Feld, Chief Executive Officer and President,
and Jane L. Baughman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby 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; 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/ Barry J. Feld                                                                                            
|Barry J. Feld Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)                            
|                                                                                                             
|April 2, 2009                                                                                                
|                                                                                                             
|/s/ Jane L. Baughman                                                                                         
|Jane L. Baughman Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial & Accounting Officer)
|                                                                                                             
|April 2, 2009
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDREY SHUKLIN, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 1:18-cr-109-1 

JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE 

_____________________________________ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR THIRD-PARTY PETITIONERS 

TATIANA RAKHMANINOVA AND INDEPENDENT VAN LINES, LLC 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that undersigned counsel, DUSTIN BRADLEY RAWLIN, 

ESQ. of NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, hereby enters his appearance 

as counsel of record for third-party Petitioners Tatiana Rakhmaninova and Independent Van Lines, 

LLC, in the above captioned action. The undersigned requests that copies of all further notice, 

pleadings, and other papers served in this case be served on him at 

dustin.rawlin@nelsonmullins.com. 

Dated: June 10, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

NELSON MULLINS RILEY & 

SCARBOROUGH LLP 

/s/ Dustin B. Rawlin 

Dustin B. Rawlin 

1111 Superior Avenue, Suite 530 

Cleveland, OH 44114 

Tel.: (216) 304-6153 

dustin.rawlin@nelsonmullins.com

Attorneys for Third-Party Petitioners 

Tatiana Rakhmaninova and Independent Van 

Lines, LLC

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 248 Filed: 06/10/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1690
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on June 10, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Court’s CM/ECF System, which will send a notice of electronic filing 

to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Dustin B. Rawlin 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 248 Filed: 06/10/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1691
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-62,010-02

EX PARTE MITCHELL JOHNSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 896336-B IN THE 176 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

ORDER

Applicant was convicted of assault on a public servant and sentenced to twenty-five

years’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Johnson v. State,

No. 01-02-01035-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1 ] Jan. 8, 2004). Applicant filed this application st

for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this

Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

After a review of the record, we find that Applicant’s claims regarding his street time

and parole are without merit. Therefore, we deny relief.

Applicant’s claims challenging his conviction are dismissed pursuant to TEX. CODE
CRIM. PRO. Art. 11.07 §4.

Delivered: December 9, 2020

Do not publish
Exhibit 10.1


 


March 23,
2009


 


Dear Hong
Liang Lu:


 


On March 23,
2009, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of UTStarcom, Inc.
(the “Company”) accepted your offer to voluntarily reduce your base
salary.  Effective as of the date hereof,
the Company will reduce your current base salary by twenty percent (20%) for a
one year period expiring March 23, 2010 (the “Salary Reduction”).


 


Notwithstanding
this Salary Reduction, your base salary, as in effect immediately prior to the
Salary Reduction (the “Pre-Reduction Rate”), shall be deemed and continue to be
your base salary for all other purposes under any employment agreement between
you and the Company and under the Company’s benefit and personnel plans,
programs and policies, including without limitation, bonuses, equity awards,
severance payments, change in control payments and any other benefits, to the
maximum extent permitted by law.  For
example, for the avoidance of doubt, any severance benefits payable to you in
the future pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Change of
Control/Involuntary Termination Severance Agreement, dated January 30,
2008 by and between the Company and you, as amended (the “Severance Agreement”),
and/or any other Company plan or program, shall be calculated without regard to
this Salary Reduction, and any bonus payable to you for 2009 or 2010 shall be
calculated without regard to this Salary Reduction.  Commencing on March 24, 2010, your base
salary shall revert to the Pre-Reduction Rate, subject, however, to any merit
increases, which merit increases shall be based upon the Pre-Reduction Rate.


 


You hereby
acknowledge that the Salary Reduction is a voluntary decision by you and shall
not constitute “Good Reason” under the Severance Agreement, any other agreement
between you and the Company or any other Company plan or program.  You hereby waive any rights to receive
severance benefits pursuant to the Severance Agreement or otherwise as a result
of the Salary Reduction.


 


Except as
specifically set forth in this letter, the Severance Agreement and any other
agreement between you and the Company remain in full force and effect without
modification.


 


Please
acknowledge receipt of this letter agreement and your acceptance of the terms
hereof by signing below and returning the signed copy to the Human Resources
Department.


 




	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  SVP, General
  Counsel, Secretary and Chief Ethics

  Officer

  






 

















 


ACKNOWLEDGED
AND AGREED TO:


 


 




	
  Signature:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Hong Liang Lu

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name printed:

  	
   

  	
  Hong Liang Lu

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date: 

  	
  March 23, 2009
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 D0 18 1 . DONALD MORAN v . THE STATE.

In M arch 2 0 1 4

, Do n al d M o ran was s en t en ced fo l l o wi ng h i s c o n v i ct i o n s fo r

ag g rav at ed b at t ery , ag g rav at ed as s au l t

, b u rg l ary, p o s s e s s i o n o f a k ni fe d u ri n g t h e

co m m i s s io n o f a fel o n y , an d s t al k in g

. On ap p eal

, t h i s Co urt r e v e r s e d t he s t al k i n g

co n vi ct i o n an d affi rm ed t h e rem ai n i n g co n v i ct i o ns

. See Mo r a n v. S ta t e , 3 3 4 Ga. Ap p.

7 6 5 (2 0 15 ). I n J an u ary 2 0 1 6, M o ran fi l ed an ex t rao rd i n ary m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt d en ied o n J u l y 14

, 2 0 1 6

. M o ran i m p ro p erl y fi l ed a d i rect ap p eal

o f t h e d en i al

. See Mo r an v. S t a t e , Cas e No

. A1 7 A0 5 6 3; s ee al so OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a)

(7 ) (p ro v id i n g t h at t h e d en ial o f an ex t rao rd i n ary m o t i o n fo r n ew tri al is s u b ject t o t h e

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u re). On No v em b er 2 8

, 2 01 6

, M o r a n f

i l e d th e i n s t an t

ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew o f t h e d en i al . W e l ack ju ri s d ict i o n

. As M o ran reco g ni zes , h i s ap p l i cat i o n i s u nt i m el y

. To b e t i m el y , a d i s cret i o n ary

ap p li cat io n m

u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry of t h e o rd er s ou g ht t o be ap p eal ed

, b u t M o ran fi l ed h is ap p l i cat io n 1 3 7 d ay s aft er en t ry of t h e o rd er den y i n g h i s

e x t r a o r d i n ary m o t i on fo r new t ri al

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ). W h i l e M oran arg u es

t h at w e s h o u l d co n s i d er h i s ap p l i c a t i o n f o r s ev eral reas o ns , t h e req u i rem en t s o f

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 are ju ri s d ict i o n al

, an d we can n ot accep t an ap p li cat i o n fo r ap p eal n ot

m ad e i n co m

p l i an ce t herewi t h

. See Bo yl e v. S t a t e , 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4

, 7 3 4 (3 8 0 SE2 d

5 7 ) (1 9 8 9 ). Acco rd i n g l y , t hi s ap p l i cat i o n i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. December 12, 2016C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 12/12/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882343
<NAME> 90BC
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         103,585
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               217,739
<PP&E>                                       9,579,066
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,668,922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,127,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,740
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,084,143
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,127,883
<SALES>                                        831,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               837,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  612,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                225,044
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            225,044
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   225,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    18.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2003

HENRI JEAN-BAPTISTE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; MERITECH MORTGAGE 

SERVICES, INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY; STONE TITLE; 

JOHN BURSON, Esquire,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (8:13-cv-02829-CCB)

Submitted: January 23, 2019 Decided: February 11, 2019

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henri Jean-Baptiste, Appellant Pro Se. Jamar Raphael Brown, Gerard J. Gaeng, 

ROSENBERG, MARTIN & GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Henri Jean-Baptiste appeals the district court’s order marginal order denying his 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion to reopen his lawsuit challenging the foreclosure on his 

residential property. After removal to federal court, Jean-Baptiste’s lawsuit was 

remanded to state court in January 2015 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The 

district court’s remand order is not reviewable on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (d) 

(2012). We therefore affirm the marginal order denying the motion to reopen. See JeanBaptiste v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., No. 8:13-cv-02829-CCB (D. Md., filed Aug. 

17, 2018 & entered Aug. 20, 2018). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.67

                               Mr. Robert S. Trump
                              2611 West 2nd Street
                            Brooklyn, New York 11223


                                                 June 20, 1996


Financial Performance Corporation
335 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, New York  10016
Attention:  Mr. William F. Finley
                      President

            Re:   Financial Performance Corporation (the "Company")

Dear Bill:

          This letter shall confirm that I have agreed with the Company to
convert the indebtedness of the Company held by me in the amount of $517,474
into an aggregate of 2,587,370 shares of the Company's common stock at a
conversion price of $0.20 per share.

          With regard to such conversion, as well as the prior conversion of
other indebtedness of the Company held by me in March 1996, it is understood and
agreed that if, at any future date(s), the Company shall issue post-reverse
split shares of common stock to any other party for a price of less than $1.00
per share, I shall thereupon be issued such number of additional shares of the
Company's common stock without payment of any additional consideration so that
the effective conversion rate for al shares of the Company's common stock issued
to me resulting from the conversion of debt to equity is equal to the lowest
per-share price at which the Company's common stock is hereafter issued to any
other party.

          Thank you for your kind attention to these matters.


                                          Sincerely,

                                          /s/ Robert S. Trump

                                          Robert S. Trump

Confirmed and Agreed To:

Financial Performance Corporation


By:  /s/ William F. Finley
     ------------------------------
     William F. Finley, President
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 64 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 8, 2021 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a correction 

in the enrollment of the bill S. 1605. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill S. 1605, 

3 the Secretary of the Senate shall make the following cor4 rection: Amend the long title so as to read: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 64 RDS 

1 ‘‘An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 

2 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 

3 military construction, and for defense activities of the De4 partment of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 

5 strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 7, 

2021. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 

By KEVIN MCCUMBER, 

Deputy Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Holly D. Newsome,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-cv-497

Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court for consideration of the March

11, 2019, report and recommendation of the United States magistrate

judge to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b). 

The magistrate judge concluded that the administrative law judge

failed to provide good reasons for rejecting the opinion of Michael

Sayegh, M.D., plaintiff’s treating physician, that plaintiff was

unable to sit for long periods of time without taking breaks. The

magistrate judge recommended that the Commissioner’s non-disability

finding be reversed, and that this case be remanded to the

Commissioner and the administrative law judge pursuant to 42

U.S.C.§405(g), sentence four, for further proceedings.

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties

that failure to object to the report and recommendation within

fourteen days of the report “will result in a waiver of the right

to have the District Judge review the Report and Recommendation de

novo” and a “waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the

District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.” Doc. 23,

p. 16. The time period for filing objections to the report and

recommendation has expired, and no party has objected to the report
and recommendation.

The court adopts the report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge (Doc. 23). The decision of the Commissioner is

reversed, and this case is remanded to the Commissioner and the

administrative law judge under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), sentence four,

for further proceedings consistent with the report and

recommendation. The clerk shall enter judgment remanding this case

to the Commissioner.

Date: March 27, 2019 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

2
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/17 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
Henry A. JACKSON v. Oran ALEXANDER

2160221

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

AT SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 

Ex Parte, JUAN TORRES 

APPELLANT 

VS. CAUSE NO. 

04-15-00182-CR 

The State of Texas 

APPELLEE 

ADVISORY TO THE COURT 

Counsel for Appellant, Juan Torres has yet to receive Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law from the 38th Judicial District Court. An online search 

of the Fourth Court Website, does not show the receipt of such filing from the 

38th Judicial District Court. Appellant's brief is incomplete without such 

Findings. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Roy R. Barrera, Sr. 

SBOT 01808000 

NICHOLAS AND BARRERA, PC 

424 E. Nueva Street 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

(210) 224-5811 

(210) 224-5890 

ACCEPTED

04-15-00182-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

6/1/2015 3:03:39 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/1/2015 3:03:39 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk