alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frederic PITTMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20530.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1966.

William Gaffney, Robert S. Egger, Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

Eugene G. Cushing, U. S. Atty., Stanley H. Barer, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before HAMLIN, KOELSCH and ELY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal the defendant’s assignments of error are devoted exclusively to instructions given by the Court.

Appellant urges that eleven of the twelve challenged instructions are incorrect. But at most they contain some surplusage and, in a few instances, inapt words. Imprecision of statement and inexactness of language in instructions is not reversible error, unless the jury is *561misled. Here no such conclusion is indicated.

We agree with appellant that the remaining instruction, concerning the matter of punishment, was over-broad. The crimes were such that the jury was in no way concerned with the penalty that attached [Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 68 S.Ct. 880, 92 L.Ed. 1055 (1948)] and the part of the Court’s instruction to that effect was proper; the further statement concerning the Court’s broad powers over the defendant in the event of his guilt was not. See Pope v. United States, 298 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1962).

The court, in an instruction which immediately followed the erroneous comment, remarked that the matter was one exclusively for the court to decide and admonished the jury to disregard “possible punishment” in arriving at its decision. The appellant does not contend that the evidence was insufficient to support conviction, and we conclude, under the circumstances, that the erroneous instruction was neutralized.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Davis Yarn Co., Inc., et al., Appellants and Respondents, *v.*Brooklyn Yarn Dye Co., Inc., Respondent, and Commercial Union Assurance Company, Ltd., Respondent and Appellant, Impleaded with Sentinel Fire Insurance Company et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*860
      *Bert Cotton*for motion.

*John L. Fletcher*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.
Derrick D. GILBERT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3344

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 29, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is required to make an express and distinct demand for performance before mandamus will be considered. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

LaROSE, C.J., and WALLACE and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
#### Sidney Kowler, Respondent, *v.*National Transportation Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Argued April 14, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*797
      *James A. Doherty*and *Philip Hoffer*for appellant.

*Arthur N. Seiff, Phillip S. Rivlin*and *Louis L. Resnich*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6123 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6123

    To prohibit the Secretary of State from requiring United States 
citizens who are evacuated by the Department of State or for which the 
   Department of State provides government assisted departure from a 
   crisis situation abroad to pay for the costs associated with such 
                        evacuation or departure.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2023

   Mr. Palmer (for himself, Mr. D'Esposito, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. 
Stauber, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Donalds, and Mrs. Miller-Meeks) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the Secretary of State from requiring United States 
citizens who are evacuated by the Department of State or for which the 
   Department of State provides government assisted departure from a 
   crisis situation abroad to pay for the costs associated with such 
                        evacuation or departure.

    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 ``Bring Americans Home Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of State 
may not require any United States citizen who is evacuated by the 
Department of State or for which the Department of State provides 
government assisted departure from a crisis situation abroad to pay for 
the costs associated with such evacuation or departure.
                                 <all>
```
From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Heidi King <hking@omb.eop.gov>, dmancini@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Bridgid Curry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marta Montoro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@

Date: 01/22/2010 10:33 PM

Subject: Fw: Updated version of the NO2 final notice

Here's the track changes version.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Kevin McCarthy is the President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | A) | 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(a) or 78o (d)) and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement
be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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



|                |  |                                                               
|--------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|August 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Kevin McCarthy                                            
|Dated           |  | Kevin McCarthy President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Date: Time : 

### O Pass 

### O Failed Airport Notified : If Yes Contact Name : Phone Number : Comments : Weather Good Fair Visibility Good Fair Wind Speed Low Medium Proximity to Congested Population :

Signature _________________________________ Aproximate Flight Duration : Inspected By :

Aditional Comments : Safety Concerns : Coments : Adress:
Proximity to Heavily Traveled Roads : 

# Flight Log

Proximity to Airport : 

### Location: Pre-Flight Inspection
EXHIBIT
32.1
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002
  In
connection with the Annual Report of American Security Resources Corporation , a
Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSBA for the year ended December
31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
Frank Neukomm, President and Chief Executive Officer, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
his knowledge:
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
  Date:
      September 3, 2008
              By: /s/ Frank
      NeukommName:
      Frank NeukommTitle:
      President and CEO
    A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Security Resources Corporation and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BIJAI CHAND,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72791

Agency No. A044-955-792

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Court Judges.

Bijai Chand, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

FILED

NOV 16 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-72791

reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chand’s motion to reopen as

untimely where he filed the motion more than six years after his final order of

removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90

days of final order), and failed allege ineffective assistance against his third

attorney who represented him between July 2009 and November 2010, see

Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due

diligence in discovering such circumstances).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**EXHIBIT
32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**
 **PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 The
undersigned, Robert J DeSantis, Chief Financial Officer of DSL.net, Inc. (the
“Company”), in connection with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2004 and filed on this date (the “Report”), hereby
certifies that the Report (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii)
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
 
 
 
 By: */s/
Robert J. DeSantis*
 Robert J.
DeSantis
 Chief
Financial Officer
 Date:
March 23, 2005
 
 The
foregoing certification is being provided pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not to be deemed a part of the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of the registrant, nor is it to be deemed to be filed by the
registrant for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
“Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. The
foregoing certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by
reference.
|  | (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. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                                             |                          |
|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                                    |                                                             |
|                               |                                                        |                     |
| Date:                September 28, 2007 | By:                                                    | /s/                Wenhua Guo |
|                                    | Wenhua                Guo                                        |
|                                    | Chairman                of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |

----
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Christopher G. OMeara, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TIBCO Software Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (c) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (d) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 11, 2005



By:

/s/    CHRISTOPHER G.
OMEARAName:

Christopher G. OMearaTitle:

Executive Vice President, Finance andChief Financial Officer
Order entered August 21, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 00369

- CV

MANEESE WALL, Appellant

V.

PHILLIP M. ORR, JR., TRUSTEE OF THE ORR FAMILY TRUST, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

C ollin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366

- 03307

- 2010



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file her motion for

rehearing. We GRANT the motion. Appellant’s motion for rehearing received August 15, 2013

is deemed timel y filed.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nova Neal FINAU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10397 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 20, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, T& for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nova Neal Finau, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

*350PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Nova Finau 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 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Finau has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. 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 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Michael S. MCCORMACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-15549

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 23, 2017 * Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed March 21, 2017

Andre Wooten, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Andre S. Wooten, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Curtis Edwin Sherwood, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Nicolette Winter, Corporation Counsel, City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael S. McCormack appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his motion for an enlargement of time to amend his complaint, and the district court’s grant of the police officer defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to serve the complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. McCormack had access to the full names of the police officer defendants by October 2010, and had access to the color photographs of the police officer defendants on March 28, 2011. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge did not err when he denied McCormack’s motion for an enlargement of time to amend his complaint, and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s denial of that motion.

2. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in granting the police officer defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. *650R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) for failure to serve the complaint. The version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) in effect at the time provided that if a defendant is not served within the applicable deadline, “the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Because McCormack failed to serve the complaint by the extended deadline the district court granted at his request, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

3. McCormack failed to include any argument in his opening brief regarding the district court’s grant of the City and County’s motion to dismiss. “We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim, particularly when, as here, a host of other issues are presented for review.” Gre*enwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Therefore, McCormack has waived any claim that the district court erred in granting the City and County’s motion to dismiss.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 10.5






Exhibit 10.5
[COOLSCULPTING LOGO]


February 10, 2012






Dear Josh,


It is my great pleasure to notify you of your promotion to Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, effective January 1, 2012.  As CFO, you will continue to report to me and will have direct responsibility for the Finance organization.  You have demonstrated to me and to the Board of Directors that, while a CFO position is not on your career's “bucket list”, you have the skills required to excel at the position.  You continue to stand out for your devotion to ZELTIQ, your productivity, and your talent.  I look forward to your leadership of the Finance organization and trust you will drive us all to levels of achievement that exceed our expectations.


As a result of your promotion, your Base Salary will be increased to $260,000 per year. In addition, your Variable Compensation at target will be 45% of your base salary.  The Variable Compensation will be paid in accordance with our annual Bonus Plan, initially the 2012 Bonus Plan. At the recent Board Meeting, you also were approved for inclusion in the Long Term Incentive program: you will receive 26,316 shares of Stock Options and 7,692 RSUs in the 2012 grant.


In addition, you will qualify for a Change in Control provision, akin to Sergio Garcia's and mine:


Change in Control: During your employment with the Company, if a Change in Control of the Company occurs, and if you resign for Good Reason or are terminated without Cause within one year following such Change in Control, then you will receive immediate vesting of any restricted stock units, outstanding stock options or other equity awards. 
“Good Reason” shall mean solely and specifically: (i) any material reduction in your base salary or any guaranteed bonus, (ii) a material diminution of your job duties or responsibilities, or (iii) a change in the location of your employment of more than 20 miles (which is material) from its current location unless such relocation is within 50 miles of your principal residence. 
For purposes of this Agreement, “Change in Control” means (a) a sale of all or substantially all of the Company's assets, or (b) any merger, consolidation or other business combination transaction of the Company with or into another corporation, entity or person, other than a transaction in which the holders of at least a majority of the shares of voting capital stock of the Company outstanding immediately prior to such transaction continue to hold (either by such shares remaining outstanding or by their being converted into shares of voting capital stock of the surviving entity) a majority of the total voting power represented by the shares of voting capital stock of the Company (or the surviving entity) outstanding immediately after such transaction other than any transaction involving the issuance of any newly issued equity securities solely for cash. 


 
I've enjoyed working with you through our Initial Public Offering and look forward to a great year! Congratulations on your promotion.


Sincerely,




	
	
	 

	/s/ Gordie Nye

	Gordie Nye

	President and Chief Executive Officer
#### ADVANCED GROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. LIFE360, INC., Defendant-Appellee

2016-1332

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 20, 2017

Alfred Ross Fabricant, Brown Rudnick, LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Peter Lambrianakos.

Daniel H, Brean, The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA, argued for defendant-ap-pellee. Also represented by Kent E. Bal-daup, Jr„ Bryan P. Clark, Christian D. Ehret.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Wallach and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.