alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN the INTEREST OF M.G, a child,

L.H., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2168

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Filed 7/30/13 P. v. Landers CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
ANDRE LANDERS,
Defendant and Appellant. B243258
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA123792)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supe rior Court of Los Angeles County, Marcelita V. Haynes, Judge. Affirmed. Maria Morrison, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________ _________________2 On February 23, 2012, appellant was arrested on two outstanding warrants. During the subsequent booking search , the police recovered a small baggie containing cocaine base from inside appe llant’s cell phone cover. Appellant was charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). It was furthe r alleged that he had suffered a prior “strike” conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, s ubds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and seven prior convictions within the m eaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). On March 8, 2012, appellant waived his constitutional rights, pled no contest to the charged count, and admitted the prio r convictions. Pursuant to an agreement with the trial court, appellant was releas ed to a drug treatment program, where he was to remain for one year. If he succes sfully completed the program, the court agreed it would dismiss the strike and grant probation. Appellant failed to complete the program. On August 9, 2012, the trial court imposed a 32-month prison sentence, consisting of the low term of 16 months, doubled for the prior strike. The court dismissed the other priors. The court impo sed certain fees and fines, and awarded appellant 182 days of presentence custody credits. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. After examining the record, appointed ap pellate counsel file d a brief raising no issues, but asking this court to independently review the record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v.
Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On March 15, 2013, we advised appellant he had 30 days within which to submit by brie f or letter any contentions or argument
he wished this court to consider. No response was received.
This court has examined the en tire record in accordance with People v.
Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442, and is satisfied appellant’s attorney has3 fully complied with the responsibilities of c ounsel, and no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

MANELLA, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eder Cledys RODRIGUEZ, also known as Shorty, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20713 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 22, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Eder Cledys Rodriguez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Eder Cledys Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493*165(1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider such claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rodriguez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *165the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 10.5

 

Letter of Spouse Consent

 

I,             (ID No.:                                    ), is the legal spouse of               (ID No.:                                ). I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree that                enters into the following documents (“Transaction Documents”) on December 17, 2018, and that the equity held by and registered under the name of              in Ningxia Xiangshang Rongke Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Domestic Company”) will be disposed of according to the following documents:

 

(1)                                 The Equity Pledge Contract entered into by               , Ningxia Xiangshang Yixin Technology Co., Ltd. (“WFOE”), the Domestic Company and other parties;

 

(2)                                 The Exclusive Option Contract entered into by              , the WFOE, the Domestic Company and other parties; and

 

(3)                                 The Power of Attorney entered into by              , the WFOE, and other parties.

 

I hereby acknowledge that I have no interest in the equity of the Domestic Company and undertake not to make any claim over the equity, operation and management of the Domestic Company. I further acknowledge that it will not require my authorization or consent for              to perform the Transaction Documents and to amend or terminate the Transaction Documents.

 

I undertake to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary actions to ensure the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time) are properly performed.

 

I agree and undertake that if I acquire any equity in the Domestic Company for any reason, I will be bound by the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time) and comply with the obligations of a shareholder of the Domestic Company under the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time). For that purpose, upon the request of the WFOE, I will execute a series of written documents substantially in the form and content of the Transaction Documents (as amended from time to time).

 

 

	
 
    	
Spouse:  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Date:
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.15



PERFORMANCE SHARE UNIT AGREEMENT
Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) confirms that, on [grant date] (the “Grant Date”), it granted you, [name], [number] Performance Share Units (your “Performance Share Units”). Your Performance Share Units are subject to the terms and conditions of the Brighthouse Financial, Inc. 2017 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) and this Performance Share Agreement (this “Agreement”), which includes the Award Agreement Supplement (the “Supplement”) and Exhibit A to this Agreement (including any Appendices).  Please note that the Supplement includes terms for forfeiture of your Performance Share Units under some circumstances.


Standard Terms.
(a)These terms are the “Standard Terms” and will apply to your Performance Share Units except in so far as Sections S-1 (“Change of Status”), S-2 (“Change of Control”), or S-14 (“Restrictive Covenants”) apply.  If Shares are delivered to you, you will receive evidence of ownership of those Shares.


(b)The Performance Period is set forth on Exhibit A to this Agreement.  After the conclusion of the Performance Period, the Committee shall certify in writing the number of Performance Share Units payable in accordance with these Standard Terms (your “Final Performance Share Units”), and your Final Performance Share Units will be converted into, and will be due and payable in, Shares at the time specified in Section S-7 (“Timing of Payment”).


(c)Based on the Company’s achievement of the performance factors set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement (including any Appendices), you may be eligible for a payment of up to the maximum number of Performance Share Units set forth on Exhibit A. Notwithstanding any other terms of this Agreement, your payment may not exceed this amount.


(d)If, under Section (c) of these Standard Terms, you are eligible for a payment, the Committee will determine your Final Performance Share Units by multiplying your Performance Share Units by the “Final Performance Factor.”  The Final Performance Factor means a percentage within the range specified on Exhibit A as determined by the Committee. The Committee will consider the weighted average of the performance factors described in Exhibit A hereto (including any Appendices), or such other adjustments or considerations it deems appropriate.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has caused this Agreement to be offered to you, and you have accepted this Agreement by the electronic means made available to you.
CONSENT FOR USE OF SIMILAR NAME


     On  the  ____  day  of  __________, 1999, the Board of Directors of Systems
Atlanta  Commercial  Systems,  Inc.  a Georgia corporation, passed the following
resolution:

     RESOLVED,  that  Systems Atlanta Commercial Systems, Inc. gives its consent
     to Pomeroy Select Integration Solutions, Inc., a  Delaware corporation, for
     the use  of  the  name  Systems  Atlanta  Commercial  Systems,  Inc.

                                   SYSTEMS  ATLANTA  COMMERCIAL  SYSTEMS,  INC.


                                   By:  __________________________________
                                        B.  Scott  Dobson,  Vice-President


<PAGE>
Shantrelle Latrice WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2641

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 8, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*1200We affirm appellant's *Anders** appeal, but remand for correction of the community control and probation revocation order encompassing case numbers 15-CF-2870, 15-CF-3342, 16-CF-1391, and 16-CF-1397, to state, as set forth on the judgments and in the violation hearing transcript, that appellant admitted to and was found guilty of violating counts four through six of the affidavit of violation.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WOLF and RAY, JJ., concur.

*

*Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1138 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1138

 To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from 
       the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 2021

    Mr. Jacobs of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from 
       the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Preventing SBA Assistance from Going 
to China Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AFFILIATION WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
632(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) Prohibition on affiliation with the people's 
        republic of china.--For purposes of this Act, a small business 
        concern may not--
                    ``(A) be headquartered in the People's Republic of 
                China; or
                    ``(B) have more than 25 percent of the voting stock 
                of the small business concern owned by affiliates that 
                are citizens of the People's Republic of China.''.
    (b) Regulations and Guidance.--The Administrator of the Small 
Business Administration shall amend the regulations and guidance of the 
Administration, including sections 120.100, 120.110, and 121.105 of 
title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, to carry out the amendment made 
by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Engage, Inc.:

Under the date of September 20, 2000 we reported on the consolidated balance
sheets of Engage, Inc. and subsidiaries as of July 31, 1999 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit),
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended July 31,
2000, which are included in the Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2000. In
connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial
statements, we also audited the related consolidated financial statement
schedule of Valuation and Qualifying Accounts in the Form 10-K. This financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule
based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a
whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth
therein.

                                        /s/ KPMG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
September 20, 2000
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10193

Conference Calendar

 

WILLARD BRADDY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

SAM L. PRATT,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CV-1234-P

--------------------

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willard Braddy, federal prisoner # 70460-198, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 

Because Braddy seeks to challenge his conviction and 188-month

sentence for possession with the intent to distribute

methamphetamine, his petition should have been filed as a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th

Cir. 2000); Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir.
No. 02-10193 

-2-

2000). Although Braddy can proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if he

demonstrates that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief is inadequate or

ineffective, he fails to address this issue on appeal and has

therefore abandoned the argument. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 CEO Certification

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter Ended July 5, 2004 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the
undersigned hereby certifies 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 Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


          August 16, 2004               /s/ Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                        ----------------------
                                        Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                        Chief Executive Officer and President


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


<PAGE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.5.2


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Amendment to the December 21, 2016 Employment Agreement (as amended from time to time, the “Employment Agreement”) between East West Bancorp, Inc. (“Company”) and Irene Oh (“Employee”) is entered into as of this 21st day of December, 2018 by and between Company and Employee.


The following terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement are hereby modified: 


		
	1.
	Section 2 (Term) of the Agreement is hereby modified in its entirety to read as follows:  This Agreement and employment under this Agreement shall terminate on December 21, 2019, unless extended by Company.




		
	2.
	Except as expressly agreed to herein, the Employment Agreement between the parties shall remain in force and effect.






	
		
	 
	EAST WEST BANCORP, INC.

	 
	/s/ GARY TEO

	 
	Gary Teo

	 
	Head of Human Resources

	 
	 

	 
	/s/ IRENE H. OH

	 
	Employee: Irene H. Oh
#### Raymond Baba ATIMBANEME, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 16-4169

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 7, 2017

Filed: August 14, 2017

Raymond Baba Atimbaneme, Pro Se

Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Bloomington, MN, Karen Yolanda Drummond, David Kim, Carl H. McIntyre, OIL, Holly Michele Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Baba Atimbaneme, a citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen, which was based on his claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance in proceedings on his application for a waiver of inadmissibility.

We grant Atimbaneme’s motion to withdraw his first motion to file an amended opening brief, and we deny his second motion to file an amended opening brief. Turning to the merits, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, as the BIA did not fail to offer a rational explanation for its decision, depart from its established policies without explanation, ignore or distort the evidence in the record, or rely on legal error or impermissible factors. *See Valencia v. Holder,*657 F.3d 745, 748 (8th Cir. 2011). The petition for review is denied.
----

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  | October 29, 2010 |                                                         By: | /s/ Clifton R. Beckham                |   |
|--------|------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | Clifton R. Beckham                    |   |
|   |             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
Angel RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1160

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus Rudolph KEYS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6098

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

Marcus Rudolph Keys, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Rudolph Keys appeals the district court’s orders denying Keys’ motion to unseal a pretrial motions hearing transcript and his motion to reconsider. The district court record includes a transcript of the trial testimony on the date in question, but the motions hearing was not transcribed. Accordingly, we affirm. We 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*
Victoria BANKSTON v. CLC OF BILOXI, LLC

2016-CT-01190-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 6, 2018 Closed: April 12, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari of CLC of Biloxi, LLC.

Certiorari - Denied.