alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : WENDELL W. PHILLIPS, Petitioner

______________________

2022

- 159

______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:17

- cv

- 00968

- LKG, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby.

______________________
ON PETI TION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

On November 13

, 20 17 , the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Wendell W. Phillips’ case and entered judgment. The Court of Federal Claims subsequently denied Mr. Phillips ’ post

- judgment motions on January 19, 2018 and July 30, 2020

, and then stopped accepting filings

. On August 4 , 2022, Mr. Phillips filed this petition

, seeking to “remand this case back to the United States Court ofFederal Claims to correct this matter and settle this matter.” Pet

. at 26.
The remedy of mandamus is available only in “exceptional circumstances to correct a clear abuse of discretion Case: 22-159 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 09/14/2022IN RE : PHILLIPS 2

or usurpation of judicial power.” In re Calmar, Inc ., 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A partyseeking a writ of mandamus bears the burden of demonstrating to the court th at (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to relief ; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal channels through which he may obtain that relief; and (3) the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D. C ., 542 U.S. 367, 380

– 81 (2004).
Mr. Phillips has not met those requirements here. Generally, “ [m] andamus relief is not appropriate when a petitioner fails to seek relief through the normal appeal process.” In re Fermin , 859 F. App ’ x 904, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ; s ee also Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n , 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943) (finding that mandamus “may not appropriately be used merely as a substitute for the appeal procedure”); In re Pollitz , 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (“[M]andamus cannot

. . . be used to perform the office of an appeal . . . .”). Because Mr. Phillips failed to timely raise his challenges on appeal , mandamus is not appropriate

. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The petition is denied.

September 14

, 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 22-159 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 09/14/2022
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Delarosa BORDEN, also known as Jimmy White, also known as Detroit, also known as D. Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-2570

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 10, 2017

Filed: July 26, 2017

Jim Lynn, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Delarosa Borden, Pro Se

Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Delarosa Borden directly appeals his conviction and sentence upon his guilty plea to drug charges, after the district court1 denied his motions to dismiss the indictment pursuant to purported violations of his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA). His counsel moved for leave to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). At our direction, counsel filed an amended Anders brief. The amended brief argues that the district court erred in (1) denying Borden’s motions to dismiss, and (2) imposing a career-offender enhancement. Borden has filed two supplemental briefs, raising the same two challenges. Borden has also filed a motion requesting new counsel.

We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Borden’s motions to dismiss the indictment, because he waived his right to assert IADA violations when he pleaded guilty. See Baxter v. United States, 966 F.2d 387, 389 (8th Cir. 1992) (by pleading guilty, defendant waived his right to assert IADA violations). We further conclude that the district court did not plainly err in finding—for purposes of the career-offender enhancement—that the Michigan armed-robbery conviction qualified as a crime of violence, and that the Michigan possession-with-intent-to-distribute conviction qualified as a controlled-substance offense. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 2014) (procedural errors not objected to at sentencing are reviewed for plain error); cf. United States v. House, No. 16-1691, — F.3d-,-, 2017 WL 2569706, at *3-4 (6th Cir. June 14, 2017) (Michigan possession-with-intent-to-distribute conviction was controlled-substance offense for purposes of career-offender enhancement); United States v. Lamb, 847 F.3d 928, 930 (8th Cir. 2017) (Michigan unarmed robbery convictions were violent felonies under Armed Career Criminal Act). Because we conclude the career-offender provision was *442correctly applied, we need not consider Borden’s pro se challenges to the sentencing calculation that would have otherwise applied.

Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, deny Borden’s motion, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### Marilyn SPERLING, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DSWC, INC., an Ohio corporation; and DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55231

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 6, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed October 19, 2017

Douglas Caiafa, Senior Trial Attorney, Douglas Caiafa, A Professional Law Corp., Los Angeles, CA, Christopher J. Morosoff, Attorney, Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff, Palm Desert, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Anthony Anscombe, Sedgwick LLP, Chicago, IL, Kirk Christopher Jenkins, Sedgwick LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

*655Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

After purchasing shoes at Designer Shoe Warehouse, Marilyn Sperling filed a putative class action complaint alleging that the store’s price tags were false or deceptive under California law. The price tags displayed the manufacturer’s suggested retail price as a “compare at” price. Sperling claimed that the price tags were false or deceptive because she did not understand, nor would a reasonable consumer have understood, the “compare at” price to be the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. The district court granted Designer Shoe Warehouse’s motion to dismiss her second amended complaint and denied leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2003). Sperling failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). She failed to allege sufficient facts to show with particularity how or why displaying the manufacturer’s suggested retail price as a “compare at” price was false or deceptive. Id. at 1106. Price tags suggesting that consumers compare the product’s price to the manufacturer’s suggested retail price are not inherently false or deceptive. Though Sperling alleged that she found shoes elsewhere for a few dollars less than the “compare at” price, she did not allege when she found them, so it could well have been long after her purchase, when the passage of time could have reduced market demand for the shoes. Nor do Sperling’s other allegations establish, if proved, that the manufacturer’s suggested retail price was not a fair comparator at the time of her purchase.

2. We review the district court’s denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion. Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sperling leave to file a third amended complaint. Sperling was given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in her pleading after the district court’s guidance in an earlier dismissal, but she failed to do so. Id.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### TUIFAO, Plaintiff v. LAFITOGA, Defendant

No. 12-1928

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Matai Name: "Pule”]

March 21, 1929

JAMES W. FOXALL, LUTU, and PELE, *Judges*

To try the right of Lafitoga to register the Matai Name ‘TULE”

JUDGMENT

The above case came on to be heard before the High Court, with Judges Foxall, Lutu and Pele sitting, at Leone, *419Tutuila, American Samoa at 10:00 A.M. of March 21, 1929.

The court inquired as to whether or not the parties to the controversy had been able to reach an agreement as to who should hold the Matai Name “Pule.”

Pule, representing Fafitoga and Tuifao, acting as his own counsel, both requested the court to dismiss the case without decision.

It is therefore adjudged and decreed that the within case, to determine the right of Lafitoga to register the Matai Name “Pule,” be dismissed and it is so ordered.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6541 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain entries of steel 

and aluminum products retroactively approved for exclusion from certain 

duties. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2023 

Mr. WENSTRUP (for himself and Ms. BROWN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain 

entries of steel and aluminum products retroactively approved for exclusion from certain duties. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN STEEL AND ALU4 MINUM PRODUCTS RETROACTIVELY ELIGI5 BLE FOR EXCLUSION FROM ADDITIONAL DU6 TIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 514 of 

8 the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other pro9 vision of law, U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6541 IH

1 liquidate or reliquidate each entry of a covered product 

2 on which duties under section 232 of the Trade Expansion 

3 Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. 1862) were paid before the date 

4 of the enactment of this Act without an assessment of 

5 such duties. 

6 (b) REQUESTS.—A liquidation or reliquidation may 

7 be made under subsection (a) with respect to an entry of 

8 an article only if a request therefor is filed with U.S. Cus9 toms and Border Protection, not later than 180 days after 

10 the date of the enactment of this Act, that contains suffi11 cient information to enable U.S. Customs and Border Pro12 tection— 

13 (1) to identify and reconstruct the entry, if nec14 essary; and 

15 (2) to verify that the article is a covered prod16 uct. 

17 (c) REFUNDS.—Any refunds owed by the United 

18 States pursuant to the liquidation or reliquidation of an 

19 entry under this section shall be paid, without interest, 

20 not later than 90 days after the date of the liquidation 

21 or reliquidation (as the case may be). 

22 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

23 (1) COVERED PRODUCT.—The term ‘‘covered 

24 product’’ means a product that— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6541 IH

1 (A) is eligible for exclusion from additional 

2 duties imposed by the President under section 

3 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 

4 U.S.C. 1862) on imports of— 

5 (i) steel articles classifiable under 

6 heading 9903.80.01 of the Harmonized 

7 Tariff Schedule of the United States; or 

8 (ii) aluminum articles classifiable 

9 under heading 9903.85.01 of such Sched10 ule; and 

11 (B) was granted such exclusion through an 

12 approval for retroactive application issued by 

13 the Department of Commerce during 2020 or 

14 2021. 

15 (2) ENTER; ENTRY.—The terms ‘‘enter’’ and 

16 ‘‘entry’’ include a withdrawal from warehouse for 

17 consumption. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6588 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to assess whether international 

financial institutions, such as the International Bank for Reconstruction 

and Development and the International Monetary Fund, are sufficiently 

focused on preventing terrorist financing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2023 

Ms. DE LA CRUZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to assess whether 

international financial institutions, such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and 

the International Monetary Fund, are sufficiently focused 

on preventing terrorist financing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘International Financial 

5 Institution Counter Terrorism Accountability Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6588 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITU2 TION FOCUS ON TERRORIST FINANCING. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Within 180 days after the date 

4 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 

5 shall submit to the Congress a written report that includes 

6 the following: 

7 (1) A list of the countries supported by the 

8 International Bank for Reconstruction and Develop9 ment (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘World Bank’’) 

10 and the International Monetary Fund (in this Act 

11 referred to as the ‘‘IMF’’). 

12 (2) A list of the activities and programs that 

13 the World Bank and the IMF provide to member 

14 countries to combat terrorist financing and anti15 money laundering activities. 

16 (3) The total amount spent by the World Bank 

17 and the IMF on providing the activities and pro18 grams referred to in paragraph (2), and the total 

19 amount of Federal funds used for the activities and 

20 programs in the 10-year period ending with such 

21 date of enactment. 

22 (4) An evaluation of the effectiveness of the ac23 tivities and programs. 

24 (b) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Within 90 days after sub25 mitting to the Congress the report required by subsection 

26 (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall, based on the inVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:03 Dec 12, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6588.IH H6588

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6588 IH

1 formation in the report, develop recommendations for 

2 measures to be implemented by the World Bank and the 

3 IMF which would enhance the efforts of the World Bank 

4 and the IMF to combat terrorist financing and anti-money 

5 laundering activities, and instruct the United States Exec6 utive Directors at the World Bank and the IMF to advo7 cate for their respective institutions to implement the 

8 measures. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Toy T. Roberts et al., Respondents, *v.*Peter Larsen et al., Appellants.

Argued January 12, 1943;

decided March 11, 1943.

*Irving Ginsberg*for appellants.

*187
      *Jerome O. Ellis*for respondents.

*188
      *Per Curiam.*

The motions for dismissal of the cause of action for breach of the covenant against encumbrances were properly denied in view of the undisputed proof of actual encroachments tending to establish that cause of action. Consequently the exceptions of the defendants to the denial of these motions are not sufficient to raise the question whether breach of such a covenant can be predicated on the necessity for repairs or alterations to conform a structure to building laws, and we express no opinion thereon.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 806 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 022 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of AudioCodes Ltd. (the Company) on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shabtai Adlersberg, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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: June 27, 2007/s/ SHABTAI ADLERSBERG
Shabtai AdlersbergChief Executive Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
#### John H. Jeffres, Respondent, *v.*James C. Cochrane, Appellant.

Argued September 26, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

Plaintiff was appointed receiver of the property of one John Hughes in proceedings supplementary to execution. As such receiver, he brought an action against Hughes and wife to reach three notes which he alleged had been transferred by Hughes to his wife in fraud of his creditors. During the pendency of the action, the wife transferred one of the notes to her attorney in the action, receiving part of the purchase price in cash, the balance being applied in payment for his services. The other two notes were transferred before maturity to *bona fide*purchasers. Plaintiff recovered judgment ordering Hughes and wife to deliver to him the notes, or so much thereof as shotdd be necessary to satisfy the original judgment and costs. Upon proceeding by attachment against the wife, it appeared that she had expended the proceeds of the notes, and had no means to pay the judgment. Plaintiff thereupon brought his action against the attorney to recover the avails of the note transferred to him. *Held,*that defendant having purchased *pendente lite,*with notice, was bound by the judgment, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover.

*J. O. Cochrane*for the appellant.

*E. Harris*for the respondent.

Gray, 0., reads for affirmance.

All concur. J udgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 10.82




Letter agreement effective January 1, 2011 between Errol Samuelson and Move, Inc. regarding paid time off




MOVE 910 East Hamilton Ave., 6th Floor
Campbell, CA 95008




November 17, 2010




Dear Errol,




Effective January 1, 2011, you and other senior executives reporting directly to the CEO (the “Leadership Team”) will no longer be subject to, or accrue or accumulate paid time off under the vacation, floating holiday and/or paid sick leave policies set forth in the Move Inc. Employee Handbook or in your offer letter or any other documentation with the Company.




Rather, members of the Leadership Team will be permitted to take paid time off for vacation and personal matters, subject to business needs, with the approval of the CEO. The primary limitations on permitting the taking of vacation or time off for personal matters will be those dictated by your job responsibilities. Accordingly, there will be no prescribed limits on the amount of vacation or personal time, if any, that you may request or be permitted to take in a given year notwithstanding any reference thereto in any offer letter or any other documentation with the Company.




In addition, paid time off for occasional, short illnesses will be permitted on an as-needed basis, subject to medical verification if requested by the CEO. Leadership Team members who qualify for and are granted a leave of absence under Move Inc.’s Disability Leave of Absence or Family and Medical Leave of Absence policies will be paid for up to a maximum of ninety (90) days of any such leave taken in any twelve (12)-month rolling period, less any income received from any income replacement benefits or insurance provided pursuant to any applicable law or Company-sponsored insurance or benefit program.




Members of the Leadership Team will retain all vacation accrued on or before December 31, 2010. Paid time off taken on or after January 1, 2011 will reduce any such accrued vacation balance. If upon separation from employment, a Leadership Team member has a balance of unused vacation, he or she will be paid out in accordance with the Company’s policies and practices and applicable law.




Please indicate you acceptance of these terms by signing below and returning this letter to me.




Very truly yours,




/s/ Steve BerkowitzSteve BerkowitzChief Executive Officercc
Carol Brummer, VP, Human ResourcesName
/s/ Errol Samuelson
Date
Dec. 7, 2010Errol Samuelson


---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

KENNETH A. SENOSKI, PRO SE,

Petitioner

v.

SECURITY PROCESSING CENTER, 

SUPERINTENDENT, JOHN WETZEL,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 90 WM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2020, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.