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

No. 17-5056

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed August 28, 2017

Leena Alam, Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Barry L. Derryberry, William Patrick Widell, Jr., Office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant-Appellant

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

After entering into a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver, Paul David Mitchell, II, pleaded guilty to bank robbery, interference with interstate com*928merce, and firearm offenses. Although the parties agreed to a 28-year sentence, Mitchell acknowledged in the agreement that he waived the right to appeal any sentence below the statutory maximum. The district court sentenced him to 28 years’ imprisonment, which was below the statutory maximum. Despite the waiver, Mitchell has filed a notice of appeal to challenge the sentence. Dktg. Stmt, at 3. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver. *See United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In response, Mitchell’s counsel says he “cannot claim any legally viable basis that the government’s [motion to enforce] should be denied.” Resp. at 4.

This court gave Mitchell an opportunity to file a pro se response to the motion to enforce. There has been no response.

We have reviewed the motion to enforce and the record and conclude that Mitchell’s proposed appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. *See Hahn,*359 F.3d at 1325 (describing the factors to consider when determining whether to enforce an appellate waiver).

We grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal.

*

**This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and-10th Cir. R. 32.1.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 750

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to properly characterize certain

redemptions of stock held by corporations.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 3 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. PACKWOOD (for himself and Mr. MOYNIHAN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to properly

characterize certain redemptions of stock held by corporations.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF DISTRIBUTIONS IN REDEMP4 TION OF STOCK HELD BY A CORPORATION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 302 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to redemp7 tions treated as exchanges) is amended by redesignating

8 paragraph (5) as paragraph (6) and by inserting after

9 paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
2

•S 750 IS

1 ‘‘(5) REDEMPTION FROM CERTAIN CORPORATE

2 SHAREHOLDERS.—Except as provided in regulations,

3 subsection (a) shall apply to a distribution in re4 demption of stock held by a corporation if—

5 ‘‘(A) such redemption is—

6 ‘‘(i) part of a partial liquidation (with7 in the meaning of subsection (e)) of the re8 deeming corporation, or

9 ‘‘(ii) not pro rata as to all sharehold10 ers, and

11 ‘‘(B) such corporation would be entitled to

12 a deduction under section 243, 244, or 245

13 with respect to such distribution but for the ap14 plication of this paragraph.

15 To the extent provided by regulations, no loss shall

16 be recognized solely by reason of the application of

17 this paragraph.’’

18 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—

19 (1) Subsection (a) of section 302 of such Code

20 is amended by striking ‘‘or (4)’’ and inserting ‘‘(4),

21 or (5)’’.

22 (2) Paragraph (6) of section 302(b) of such

23 Code (as redesignated by subsection (a)) is amended

24 by striking ‘‘or (4)’’ each place it appears and in25 serting ‘‘(4), or (5)’’.
3

•S 750 IS

1 (3) Subsection (e) of section 1059 of such Code

2 is amended by striking paragraph (1) and by redes3 ignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (1)

4 and (2), respectively.

5 (4) Subsection (g) of section 1059 of such Code

6 is amended by inserting ‘‘and section 302(b)(5)’’

7 after ‘‘this section’’ in paragraph (1) and in the ma8 terial preceding paragraph (1).

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by

11 this section shall apply to redemptions after May 3,

12 1995.

13 (2) EXCEPTION.—The amendments made by

14 this section shall not apply to any redemption pursu15 ant to the terms of—

16 (A) a written binding contract in effect on

17 May 3, 1995, or

18 (B) a tender offer outstanding on May 3,

19 1995.

Æ
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 Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Marcelo Fischer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 results of operations of
the Company.



Date: March 12, 2007



/s/    MARCELO FISCHERMarcelo Fischer Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

LOREN EVANS MULRAINE

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 99 DB 2020 (No. 60 RST 2020)

Attorney Registration No. 62562

(Philadelphia)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 2020, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated September 1, 2020, is approved and it is ORDERED 

that Loren Evans Mulraine, who has been on Administrative Suspension, has never been 

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, 

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, 

shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this 

Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing 

of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.6(b)

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                         EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         WHEREAS, BMC Software, Inc. ("Employer") and Robert Beauchamp
("Executive") entered into an Executive Employment Agreement dated as of January
5, 2001 (the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, Employer and Executive wish to amend the Agreement by entering
into this Amendment No. 1 ("Amendment") to the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of
which is hereby mutually acknowledged by Employer and Executive, the parties
hereby agree as follows:

         1.   Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and a new Section 3
              is hereby substituted which shall provide as follows"

                  "3.  Employment Terms.

                           3.1   Employment. Employer hereby employs Executive,
                                 and the Executive hereby accepts employment by
                                 the Employer, upon the terms and conditions set
                                 forth in this Agreement.

                           3.2   Employment Period. Subject to the provisions of
                                 Section 8, the term of the Executive's
                                 employment under this Agreement will commence
                                 on the Effective Date and end on that date
                                 which is the fourth anniversary of the
                                 Effective Date, unless sooner terminated
                                 pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The
                                 Employment Period may be extended by mutual
                                 agreement in writing of the parties."

         2.   This Amendment is effective on the date of execution indicated
              below.

         Executed as of this 30th day of April, 2002.

                                       EMPLOYER:

                                       BMC Software, Inc.


                                       By: /s/ ROBERT H. WHILDEN, JR.

                                       EXECUTIVE:


                                       /s/ ROBERT BEAUCHAMP
                                       Robert Beauchamp
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-K of FSP 50 South Tenth Street Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, George J. Carter, President and principal
executive officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations of the Company.









|Date: March 11, 2011 | /s/ George J. Carter                   
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------
|                     | George J. Carter                       
|                     | President (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Orlando ESTRADA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FTS USA, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-17159 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 30, 2017)

Harold L. Lichten, Matthew Thomson, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, PC, Boston, MA, Karl David Kelly, Miami Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Colin D. Dougherty, Jonathan D. Christ-man, Fox Rothschild, LLP, Blue Bell, PA, Susanne Mary Calabrese, Dori Katrine Stibolt, Fox Rothschild, LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellee

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Orlando Estrada appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his former employer, FTS USA, on his unpaid overtime claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201*et seq.*After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error.

An employee bringing an FLSA claim for unpaid overtime wages initially bears “the burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not properly compensated.” *Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc.,*711 F.3d 1299, 1315 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting *Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.,*328 U.S. 680, 686-87, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 1192, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946)). When an employer has failed to keep records or the records cannot be trusted, this burden of proving work without proper compensation is “relaxed.” *See id.*Under such circumstances, an employee satisfies his burden “if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated” and he “produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” *Id.*(quoting *Anderson,*328 U.S. at 687-88, 66 S.Ct. at 1192).

Even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Estrada and applying the relaxed burden for proving work per*831formed without proper compensation, Estrada’s claim fails as a matter of law. Estrada offers only vague and contradictory assertions regarding the work for which he was allegedly not paid, and those assertions cannot support “just and reasonable inference[s]” about the nature or extent of that work. *See id.*Estrada has not created a genuine issue of material fact about whether he performed work for which he was not paid.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 33.3**[****JPMORGAN CHASE LOGO****]****Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria**     JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessingcompliance as of October 1, 2006 and for the period from October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006(the “Reporting Period”), with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122 (d)of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”), ”), to the extent required by the relatedtransaction agreements excluding the criteria set forth in 17 CFR 229.1122(d) (1)(i)-(iv),(2)(i)-(vi), (3)(i)-(iv), and (4)(i)-(xv), which the Asserting Party has concluded are notapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securitizationtransactions covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exclusionsidentified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). This report covers the asset-backedsecurities transactions backed by residential mortgages and home equity loans, auto loans, creditcards, dealer floor plans, retail installment contracts and manufactured housing contracts forwhich transactions the Asserting Party performs the applicable servicing criteria, that wereregistered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, asamended, where the related asset-backed securities were either (1) issued during the calendar yearending December 31, 2006 or (2) issued prior to the calendar year ending December 31, 2006 andremain subject to the reporting requirements under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the “Platform”), as listed in Appendix A.     The Asserting Party has (i) used the criteria set forth in 17 CFR 229.1122(d) to assess thecompliance by the Asserting Party with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand (ii) concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period with respect tothe Platform, taken as a whole.     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued anattestation report for the Platform, on our assessment of compliance with the Applicable ServicingCriteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this report.JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association   /s/ Brian Goldman    Brian Goldman, Senior Vice President
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 4002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TEVIN LASHAUN COX , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cr - 00323

- WO

- 3 )

Submitted : July 16, 2018 Decided: July 26, 2018

Before KING and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

U npublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: In accordance with a written plea agreement, Tevin Lashaun Cox pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(C) (2012), and was sentenced to 15 1 months in prison. Cox appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred when it did not impose a sentence below Cox’s Guidelines range but stating that the re are no meritorious issues for appeal. Cox was advised of his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.
T he district court properly calculated Cox ’s Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing f actors and the arguments of the parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the case. In imposing sentence, the court remarked on the seriousness of the offense, which involved multiple sales of crack cocaine , as w ell as Cox’s gang affiliation . While Cox argues that the court should have imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range, we note that the court stated that the sentence , which wa s at the bottom of Cox’s Guidelines range of 151

- 188 months , w as sufficient b ut not greater than necessary and that a lower sentence would not be appropriate. Cox’s within

- Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable , and Cox failed to rebut the presumption

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter , 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Pursuant to Anders , we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Cox ’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Cox , in wr iting, of the right to petition the3 Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Cox requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw fr om representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Cox . 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 decisi onal process.
AFFIRMED
2

t , I EMS1 VineLIN ,, :; 2

„ ; 

### was committed by discharging a firearm. We therefore conclude that the

district court did not err in denying appellant's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

Cherry cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge William 0. Gibbons Lander County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Lander County Clerk

2 

### We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) I947A
[LETTERHEAD OF WATTS, GRIFFIS AND MCOUAT LIMITED]

EXHIBIT23.2

March 30, 2007

LETTER OF CONSENT

Lundin Mining Corporation

I, John R. Sullivan, refer to the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Lundin Mining Corporation dated April 2, 2007 (including all exhibits, the "Annual Report").

I hereby consent to the use of the Watts, Griffis and McOuat Limited report titled A Technical Review of the Galmoy Mine and Prospecting Licences Held by Arcon in the Irish Midlands-Republic of Ireland for Lundin Mining Corporation, dated April 22, 2005, and the report title A Technical Review of the Zinkgruvan mine in South-Central Sweden for South Atlantic Ventures, dated March 13, 2004, of which I am an author, and the appearance of my name in the Annual Report.

Yours very truly,

/s/  John R. Sullivan



Per:

John R. Sullivan, B. Sc., P. Geo.

MK/ls

Dated:  March 30, 2007

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel R. BUCZEK, Claimant-Appellant, and Bernard Von Nothaus, Defendant.

No. 16-7639

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

*746Daniel R. Buczek, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Bain-Creed, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel R. Buczek appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion* for relief from the court’s prior order dismissing Buczek’s petition claiming an ownership interest in certain property subject to criminal forfeiture. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Buczek leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Buczek,*No. 5:09-cr-00027-RLV-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Buczek’s motion was self-styled, in part, as a “Writ of Error Objecting & Dismissing Order of Richard L. Voorhees.” The district court construed this motion, in which Buczek also sought sanctions against the federal prosecutors involved in the underlying criminal matter, as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Buczek does not contest this characterization on appeal.