alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin IBERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4693

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Charles M. Henter, HENTERLAW, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Zachery T.' Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Iberson seeks to appeal from his conviction and 48-month sentence for co-*695came base trafficking. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely and barred by Iberson’s appellate waiver. We grant the Government’s motion and dismiss Iberson’s appeal.

In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within fourteen days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); *United States v. Reyes,*759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). ‘When the government properly objects to the untimeliness of a defendant’s criminal appeal, Rule 4(b) is mandatory and inflexible.” *See United States v. Frias,*521 F.3d 229, 234 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).

The district court entered the criminal judgment against Iberson on January 6, 2015. The notice of appeal was deemed filed on November 19, 2016. *See Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because Iberson failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### RIVERCARD, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scot PATRIQUIN and Patriquin Law Professional Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16794

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed May 26, 2017

Trevor Hatfield, Hatfield <& Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Joseph Garin, Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer *&*Garin PC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: KOZINSKI and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and WILKEN,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Claudia Wilken, United States Senior District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

1. “A party who intends to raise an issue about a foreign country’s law must give notice by a pleading or other writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. Notice must be given “at a time that is reasonable” and “generally ... before or during the pretrial conference.” DP Aviation v. Smiths Indus. *464Aerospace & Def. Sys. Ltd., 268 F.3d 829, 847 (9th Cir. 2001). Patriquin twice invoked Ontario’s statute of limitations: as an affirmative defense in its answer and in its motion for summary judgment. Because both of those pleadings were filed before the district court scheduled a pretrial conference, Patriquin provided reasonabje notice of Canada’s statute of limitations.

2. Nothing in the record suggests that the parties chose Ontario law in bad faith and in an attempt to evade Nevada law. See id. Moreover, Ontario has a substantial relationship to the escrow agreement. See Williams v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 109 Nev. 333, 849 P.2d 265, 266 (1993). Patri-quin Law, a Toronto law firm, released the escrow funds to Post Oak Productions, Inc., an Ontario-based corporation. Finally, the district court’s deference to Ontario law is consistent with Nevada’s public policy interest in “protecting the freedom of persons to contract.” Hansen v. Edwards, 83 Nev. 189, 426 P.2d 792, 793 (1967). The escrow agreement’s choice-of-law provision is therefore valid under Nevada’s three-factor test. See Engel v. Ernst, 102 Nev. 390, 724 P.2d 215, 217 (1986).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NUMBER 13-16-00282-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MARCUS DOWNIE, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

On appeal from the 214th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Marcus Downie, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his 

conviction in trial court cause number 15-CR-0633-F. The trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of 

appeal is not made a part of the record. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id. R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The 
2

purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from nonappealable cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered 

while eliminating, at an early stage, the time and expense associated with nonappealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 

645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Within thirty days of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Hon. Travis 

Berry, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether appellant 

has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to 

whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of 

any amended certification. 

If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is 

further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of this notice, 

identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be 

modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not 

addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the applicable case 

law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by the record. See 

Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614–15; cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that recitations in 

the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of record 

documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting 
3

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,

10.2.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

19th day of August 2016.
#### In the Matter of New York State Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, against George B. Wheeler, Inc., Respondent. In the Matter of the People of the State of New York ex rel. New York State Labor Relations Board, Respondent, against George B. Wheeler, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 5, 1943;

decided April 22, 1943.

*Howard C. Campbell*for motion.

*William E. Grady, Jr., George G. Gallants*and *Daniel Kornblum*opposed.

Motion dismissed, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements on the ground that the order does not, as to the moving party, finally determine the special proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Tony TRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. DAVEY, Warden, Corcoran State Prison, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-16175

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 26, 2017

Tony Tran, Pro Se

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Tony Tran appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging interference with mail and violation of Tran’s right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 *721U.S.C. '§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tran’s action because Tran failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant personally participated in the alleged rights deprivation. *See Jones v. Williams,*297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (outlining requirement of personal participation in alleged constitutional violation); *see also Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Tran’s motion for appointment of counsel because Tran did not establish exceptional circumstances. *See Palmer v. Valdez,*560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**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**

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Republic Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, William R. Falzone, Treasurer(Principal financial and accounting officer) of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:****

 

(1)    The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated:    November 14, 2003 

 

/s/  William R. Falzone

William R. Falzone 

Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
6747 Campobello Rd., Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L7, Canada 

Tel: 905-363-4040 ● Toll Free: 800-758-7325 ● Fax: 905-363-0102 

Study of Icynene® Soft Foam Insulation 

Performed by

Saskatchewan Research Council 

Summary Report 1-4801-9-C-94 

May 1994 

Proprietary 

amine

2-pentanal, 2 

methyl Chlorobenzene Proprietary

amine 

Phenol 2, 6-bis

(1.1-

dimethylethyl) 4-

methyl

Permissible concentration (TLV) NE NE NE NE NE

Detection limit (ppm) 0.0016 0.00014 0.0013 0.00054 0.00033

Concentration Detected (ppm)

1 hour 0.27 0.03 0.05 N N

12 hours 0.26 0.012 0.008 N N

1 day 0.02 N N N N

2 days N N N 0.08 N

4 days N N N 0.08 0.01

7 days N N N 0.06 0.008

14 days N N N 0.009 N

30 days NNNN N

NE none established

N none detected 

ppm parts per million

Convert to mg/m3

 divide by

Proprietary amine 0.27

2-pentanal, 2 methyl 0.25

Chlorobenzene 0.23

Proprietary amine 0.17

Phenol 2, 6-bis (1.1-dimethylethyl) 4-methyl 0.11

Compound Detected

DETECTION OF VOCs AND MEASUREMENTS OF RATES OF DECAY
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                     Braun Consulting, Inc. and Subsidiaries
             Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
                     (In thousands except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                           Year Ended December 31
                                                     2000                          1999                              1998
                                       --------------------------  -----------------------------    -------------------------------
                                          Basic        Diluted         Basic         Diluted           Basic          Diluted
                                       ------------- ------------    -------------  ------------     ------------  ----------------
<S>                                    <C>           <C>           <C>             <C>              <C>            <C>
Pro forma net income                     $ (14,589)   $ (14,589)        $ 2,020        $ 2,020            $ 323            $ 323
                                       ============= ============  =============== =============    ============= =================


Shares used in computing net earnings
per share ...........................   19,372,159   19,372,159       13,979,808    13,979,808       11,572,451        11,572,451
Weighted average common shares and
common share equivalents ............
Effect of shares issuable under stock
options and warrants based on the
treasury stock method ...............            -    1,327,637                -     1,361,001                -           998,082
                                       ------------- ------------    -------------  ------------     ------------  ----------------
                                        19,372,159   20,699,796       13,979,808    15,340,809       11,572,451        12,570,533
Pro forma earning per share .........       $(0.75)      $(0.75)  (1)      $0.14         $0.13           $ 0.03            $ 0.03
                                       ============= ============    =============  ============     ============  ================


         (1) The Company is in a net loss position for the year ended December
31, 2000. Therefore, the common stock equivalents are not considered in earnings
(loss) per share diluted, since their effect is anti-dilutive.

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                   Exhibit 21
                            Team Health Subsidiaries



1.       Team Health, Inc. (TN)

         Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of Team Health, Inc.
         ----------------------------------------------
2.       Access Nurse PM, Inc. (UT)
3.       After Hours Pediatric Practices, Inc. (FL)
4.       Charles L. Springfield, Inc. (CA)
5.       Clinic Management Services, Inc. (TN)
6.       Correctional Healthcare Advantage, Inc. (FL)
7.       Daniel & Yeager, Inc. (AL)
8.       Drs. Sheer, Ahearn & Associates, Inc. (FL)
9.       Emergency Coverage Corporation (TN)
10.      Emergency Physician Associates, Inc. (NJ)
11.      Emergency Physicians of Manatee, Inc. (FL)
12.      Emergency Professional Services, Inc. (OH)
13.      Fischer Mangold, a California Partnership (CA)
14.      Health Care Alliance, Inc. (WV)
15.      Herschel Fischer, Inc. (CA)
16.      IMBS, Inc. (FL)
17.      InPhyNet Contracting Services, Inc.  (FL)
18.      InPhyNet Hospital Services, Inc. (FL)
19.      InPhyNet South Broward, Inc.  (FL)
20.      Karl G. Mangold, Inc. (CA)
21.      Kelly Medical Services Corporation (WV)








                                       1
<PAGE>
22.      Med: Assure Systems, Inc. (TN)
23.      Medical Management Resources, Inc. (FL)
24.      Medical Services, Inc. (WV)
25.      Metroamerican Radiology, Inc. (NC)
26.      Mt. Diablo Emergency Physicians,  a California General Partnership (CA)
27.      Northwest Emergency Physicians, Incorporated (WA)
28.      Paragon Contracting Services, Inc. (FL)
29.      Paragon Healthcare Limited Partnership (FL)
30.      Paragon Imaging Consultants, Inc. (FL)
31.      Physician Integration Consulting Services, Inc. (CA)
32.      Quantum Plus, Inc. (CA)
33.      Reich, Seidelmann & Janicki Co. (OH)
34.      Rosendorf, Margulies, Boruschok & Schoenbaum
         Radiology Associates of Hollywood, Inc. (FL)
35.      Sarasota Emergency Medical Consultants, Inc. (FL)
36.      Southeastern Emergency Physicians, Inc. (TN)
37.      Southeastern Emergency Physicians  of Memphis, Inc. (TN)
38.      Spectrum Cruise Care, Inc.
39.      Spectrum Healthcare Nationwide, Inc. (DE)
40.      Spectrum Healthcare Resources of Delaware, Inc. (DE)
41.      Spectrum Healthcare Resources, Inc. (DE)
42.      Spectrum Healthcare Services, Inc. (DE)
43.      Spectrum Healthcare, Inc. (DE)
44.      Spectrum Primary Care of Delaware, Inc. (DE)
45.      Spectrum Primary Care, Inc. (DE)
46.      Team Anesthesia, Inc. (TN)

                                       2

<PAGE>
47.      Team Health Anesthesia Management Services, Inc. (f/k/a Integrated
         Specialists Management Services, Inc.) (CA)
48.      Team Health Billing Services, LP  (TN)
49.      Team Health Financial Services, Inc. (TN)
50.      Team Health Southwest, LP (DE)
51.      Team Radiology, Inc. (NC)
52.      The Emergency Associates for Medicine, Inc. (FL)






















                                       3
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors of

Ariba, Inc. 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-142810, 333-117437, 333-107864, 333-84916, 333-73458, 333-61064, 333-46820, 333-33544, 333-95665, 333-89119 and 333-81773) of Ariba, Inc. of our reports dated November 18, 2008,with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Ariba, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Ariba, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2008.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

November 18, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7329

METKEL ALANA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Dir. of Va. DOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00205-RAJ-RJK)

Submitted: December 12, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Metkel Alana, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Metkel Alana seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to dismiss Alana’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive 

and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Jones v. Braxton, 392 

F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies 

relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial 

of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alana has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Compensation Policy



 (to be effective upon 

completion of this offering) 
 Exhibit 10.32 
 FIVE BELOW, INC. 

COMPENSATION POLICY FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
 (Effective [    ], 2012) 
 1. ANNUAL CASH AND STOCK COMPENSATION

  

	 	•	 	 Eligible Directors: Each member of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) who is not an employee of the Company (a
“Non-Employee Director”) and who is not affiliated with Advent International Corporation or LLR Partners Inc. 


  

	 	•	 	 Annual Cash Retainer. Commencing with the fiscal quarter in which the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”) closes, each
eligible director shall receive $40,000 paid quarterly in arrears. 


  

	 	•	 	 Additional Annual Retainers for Chairs of Committees who are Eligible Directors: $15,000 for the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee
and $10,000 for the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, in each case paid quarterly in arrears together with the annual retainer for all eligible directors. 



 

	 	•	 	 Stock in lieu of Retainers: Prior to the end of the fiscal quarter with respect to which such cash retainer relates, an eligible director may
elect, in lieu of the cash retainer, to receive fully vested shares of the Company’s common stock (“Shares”) having a Fair Market Value (as such term is defined under the Five Below, Inc. Amended and Restated Equity Incentive
Plan (the “Plan”)) equal to the amount of the foregone retainer for such period. Any such elected Shares will be delivered on or about the last day of the fiscal quarter with respect to which the foregone cash retainer relates. Any
fractional Shares will be paid in cash. 


  

	 	•	 	 Annual Equity Award. Commencing on the date on which the Company’s IPO closes and then annually at each subsequent annual meeting of
shareholders, each eligible director will receive a restricted stock award for Shares having a Fair Market Value equal to $60,000 issued under the Plan and subject to an award agreement (an “Award Agreement”). Subject to such
director’s continued service with the Company, each award shall vest in full at the next annual meeting of shareholders. Such vesting may be accelerated upon certain events as provided in an Award Agreement. 









 2. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT - Each Non-Employee Director will be reimbursed for
reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings and other Board related activities in accordance with the Company’s plans or policies as in effect from time to time1. 
 3. AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION - This Policy may be amended or terminated by the Board at any time. 
  

 

	1 	 To the extent that any such reimbursements constitute compensation, (i) such amount shall be reimbursed no later than December 31 of the year
following the year in which the expense was incurred, (ii) such amount shall not affect the amount of compensatory expense reimbursements in any subsequent year, and (iii) the right to such reimbursement shall not be subject to liquidation
or exchange for any other benefit. 



  
 -2-
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 15





Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549


Dear Sirs:


We are aware that our report dated April 26, 2000 on our review of interim
financial information of Acme Metals Incorporated (the "Company") as of and for
the period ended March 26, 2000 and included in the Company's quarterly report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-17235, 33-19437 and 33-30841) and
in its Registration Statements on From S-8 (Nos. 33-38747 and 33-59627).

Very truly yours,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
---------------------------------
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 26, 2000