alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin BOLANOS-GALVAN, also known as Martine Alvarado, also known as Martin Galvan Bolanos, also known as Martin Bolanos Galvan, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20268 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 12, 2017

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kathryn Shephard, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Martin Bolanos-Galvan pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation and was sentenced to a 36-month term of imprisonment. On appeal, he renews his challenge to the district court’s application of the eight-level aggravated felony enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). The gravamen of his argument is that, in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the definition of a crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Therefore, he contends, his prior Texas felony conviction of assault on a police officer does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 16(b) and thus is not an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).

As Bolanos-Galvan concedes, his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670, 672-77 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259), in which we rejected a constitutional challenge to § 16(b) as facially vague. Accord*371ingly, Bolanos-Galvan’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.1



                            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 on Form 10-KSB of BellaVista Capital,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, William Offenberg, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ WILLIAM OFFENBERG
------------------------------
William Offenberg, Chief Executive Officer of BellaVista Capital, Inc.
January 21, 2009
#### Muzhgan I. NAZAROVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1427

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Muzhgan I. Nazarova, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Joyce Lehman, Robert Allen Sar, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Muzhgan I. Nazarova seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing arbitra*640tion in her civil action, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), against Duke University. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The appealed order stayed the district court proceedings pending arbitration of Nazarova’s claims. Consequently, the order is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See*9 U.S.C. § 16(b) (2012). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 27, 2014

NO. 03-13-00805-CV

Andrea Chambers, Appellant

v.

Bank of America, N. A., Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on April 24, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Andrea Chambers has not prosecuted her appeal and 

did not comply with a notice from the clerk of this court. The appeal is thus subject to dismissal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### Thomas W. Morrell, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, *v.*City of New York et al., Respondents.

Argued January 18,1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*608
      *Austin B. Mandel*for appellant

*William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel (Charles F. Murphy*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
Amendment to Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.17c 
 AMENDMENT TO THE PSS WORLD MEDICAL, INC. 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED ELITe
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), effective as of the 27th day of
March, 2012, is made to the PSS World Medical, Inc. Amended and Restated ELITe Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”). All defined terms used herein but not defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan. 

The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) has
determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan as provided below. 
  

	 	1.	401(k) Plan Excess Deferrals. A new Section 5.13 is hereby added to the Plan to read as follows: 


5.13 401(k) Plan Excess Deferrals. A Participant may elect to defer up to 100% of a refund of excess contributions from the 401(k)
plan of the Company received by such Participant during the same year, provided such election is in accordance with the terms of the Plan and the Deferral Election Form. 

 

	 	2.	Payment Dates for Termination Account. Section 5.08(a)(iv) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 


(iv) Annual installment payments shall be for no less than two (2) and no more than twenty (20) annual installments (as
indicated in the Participant’s most recent effective Deferral Election Form). The initial annual installment payment shall be equal to the value of the Participant’s Account on the applicable Valuation Date divided by the number of
remaining installments to be paid (including the then-current installment payment). Thereafter, each subsequent annual installment payment shall be made in January of each subsequent year and in an amount equal to the value of the Participant’s
Account as of December 31 of the preceding year divided by the total number of annual installment payments remaining to be paid (including the then-current annual installment payment). 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized representative on the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	PSS WORLD MEDICAL, INC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David D. Klarner

	Name:	 	 David D. Klarner

	Its:	 	 Vice President and Treasurer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Alberto GAYTAN MARTELL, also known as Jorge, also known as Gera, also known as Gerardo Carreon, also known as Aaron Cordero, also known as Alejandro Carrillo, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50449 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 7, 2017

*349Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Shannon Charles Hooks, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Jorge Alberto Gaytan Martell, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Alberto Gaytan Martell, Shannon Charles Hooks, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Gaytan Martell has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Gaytan Martell’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gaytan Martell’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

Nevertheless, we note that counsel’s initial and supplemental briefs failed adequately to address the appeal waiver’s scope and enforceability, offering no legal analysis and, in the case of the supplemental brief, inaccurately setting out the terms of the waiver. We have previously admonished counsel regarding such deficiencies. Counsel is WARNED that continued deficient performance may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the denial of payment for services rendered, removal from cases, or disqualification from performing work pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act in cases appealed to this court.

*

 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.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000771

31-JAN-2017

08:47 AM
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

140540 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140540 

 COA: 295002 

Wayne CC: 08-011405-FC 

HOSEA MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 17, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Summary of Named Executive Officer Base Salaries


 Exhibit 10.1 
 Summary of Named Executive Officer Base Salaries 
 Effective as of
June 1, 2012 
  

			
	Named Executive Officer	  	Annual Base Salary    
	 Stephen M. Johnson

President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$950,000
		
	 Perry L. Elders

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$500,000
		
	 Gary L. Carlson

Senior Vice President and Chief Administration Officer
	  	$375,000
		
	 Liane K. Hinrichs

Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	  	$455,000
		
	 John T. McCormack

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
	  	$560,000
#### In the Matter of Martin H. Tankleff, Appellant, v Daniel A. Senkowski, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 769]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered October 21, 2002 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CELR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

*622Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from misusing state property. This conduct came to light when certain information that petitioner attempted to mail to an editor at Newsweek magazine was returned for insufficient postage. After reviewing the information, the facility’s correspondence department suspected that petitioner had assembled it on a computer. The matter was, accordingly, referred for an investigation, which ultimately disclosed that petitioner had been storing personal data on the hard drive of a computer in the facility’s law library where he worked. He had also used the library’s computer equipment to design and print his own greeting card. Following the administrative determination of his guilt, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding which was dismissed by Supreme Court, prompting this appeal.

Petitioner’s objection to the misbehavior report as overly vague has not been preserved for our review as he failed to raise it at the disciplinary hearing *(see Matter of Borcsok v Selsky,*296 AD2d 678, 679 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 616 [2002]). In any event, the report’s omission of specific dates and times of the alleged misconduct does not invalidate it, given that the activity in question took place over an extended period of time *(see id.*at 679; *see also Matter of Mays v Goord,*285 AD2d 847, 848 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 603 [2001]). The factual basis for the charge was set forth in the report with sufficient particularity to enable petitioner to prepare a defense *(see Matter of Fernandez v Goord,*304 AD2d 1005, 1006 [2003]).

We are equally unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that he should not have been charged with violating a disciplinary rule because he had never been informed that use of a law library computer for personal matters was prohibited. Petitioner’s alleged ignorance cannot be used to excuse his misconduct *(see Matter of Feliciano v Selsky,*263 AD2d 810, 811 [1999]). Similarly unconvincing is the contention that petitioner’s mail was improperly opened by the facility’s correspondence department. When the envelope in question was returned for insufficient postage, it became subject to inspection by regulation *(see*7 NYCRR 720.4 [k]; *see also Matter of Reid v Coughlin,*213 AD2d 950, 951 [1995]). The remaining contentions raised herein have been examined and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### PEOPLE *v.*PRINTESS C. JACKSON.

1. Criminal Law — Robbery Armed — Sufficiency of Evidence.

Conviction of robbery armed is affirmed where the record fully supports identification of defendant as the person who committed the crime and contains ample evidence to support the eonvietion (CLS 1961 § 750.529).

2. Same — Res Gestae Witnesses — Indorsement on Information.

Eailure to indorse a *res gestae*witness on an information at trial when his identity as a witness first becomes known at trial may not be raised as error on appeal where defendant does not move for his indorsement at the trial.

References for Points in Headnotes

[1] 46 Am Jut, Robbery § 50.

[2] 41 Am Jur 2d, Indictments and Informations §§ 56, 60,

*728Appeal from Wayne, Kaufman (Nathan J.), J.

Submitted Division 1 June 7, 1968 at Detroit.

(Docket No. 4,229.)

Decided June 24,1968.

Rehearing denied August 20, 1968.

Printess C. Jackson was convicted of armed robbery. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoslci,*Solicitor General, *William L. Cabalan,*Prosecuting Attorney, *Samuel J. Torina,*Chief Appellate Lawyer, and *Luvenia D. Dookett,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Albert Green,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals his nonjury conviction and sentence for armed robbery.* He questions the sufficiency of his identification as the person involved and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. He also claims error because the people failed to indorse an alleged *res gestae*witness. The record fully supports identification of defendant as the person who committed the crime, and it contains ample evidence to support the conviction. The alleged *res gestae*witness became known at trial. Defendant did not move for his indorsement at trial and the failure to endorse may not be raised for the first time on appeal. *People*v. *Rimson*(1966), 3 Mich App 713.

Affirmed.

Quinn, P. J., and Fitzgerald and J. H. Gillis, JJ., concurred.

*

 CLS 1961, § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1968 Oum Supp § 28.797).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HEATHER J. LIPPINCOTT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 251 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of September, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### Ann Lee, as Adm’rx, Resp’t, *v.*The Vacuum Oil Company, App’lt.1

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed June 2, 1891.)*

*William F. Cogswell,*for app’lt; *John Van Voorhis,*for resp’t.

1

 See 26 N. Y. State Rep., 814.

*667Per Curiam.

The court, in another proceeding in this action, having held that the judgment appealed from was settled and extinguished by the agreement of the parties, have concluded to dismiss the appeal in this action without costs to either party.

Appeal dismissed without costs.

All concur.
EXHIBIT 12.2

SARBANES-OXLEY CEO CERTIFICATION
I, Greg McCunn, certify that: 
1.     I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Keegan Resources Inc.; 
2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
4.     The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have: 
(a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 
(b)     Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 
(c)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d)     Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and 
5.     The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 
(a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial reporting.
Date: 
April 20, 2011
**/s/ Greg McCunn**
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 3, 2018

s0326 

# Order

Clerk April 3, 2018

155440 & (38)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155440

COA: 335712

Wayne CC: 12

- 000953

- FC;

12

- 005075

- FC

MARK CARTER

,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of February 20, 2018, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer

the application for leave to appeal the January 4, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals . On

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is

again considered, and it is DENIED as moot. Because the defendant did not file a motion

for relief from judgment, the Wayne Circuit Court order that the defendant seeks leave to

appeal has now been set aside in the June 29, 2017 order of that court, and the defendant

has already received the hearing on remand that this Court ordered on March 8, 2016.

T he motion to amend the application for leave to appeal is DENIED, without prejudice to

the defendant pursuing appellate relief from the Wayne Circuit Court order of December

21, 2016.
Order entered April 24, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01476-CR

JOSE FRANCISCO ORTEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F01-52273-M

ORDER

The Court GRANTS court reporter Darline King LaBar’s April 19, 2013 request for an 

extension of time to coordinate with court reporter Deborah Hamon to file the reporter’s records 

from the October 22, 2001 hearing and the November 14 and 19, 2001 hearings. We ORDER

that the records of these hearings be filed by MAY 8, 2013.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to court 

reporters Darline King LaBar and Deborah Hamon.

 

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE