alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J

- S74027

- 14

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

– SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

FRANK ROSELLI,

Appellant :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 891 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 10, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division at No. CP

- 46

- CR

- 0000820

- 2011

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DONOHUE and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2015

I join the Majority Memorandum except for its handling of Roselli’s fifth

issue, the Alleyne issue. While I agree with the Majority that Alleyne does

not abrogate the Almendarez

- Torres exception for prior convictions, the

issue is somewhat more nuanced than the Majority posits. We are not

dealing here merely with the fact of convictions. We are dealing with an

issue of what the convictions involve, i.e. , were the burglary convictions

crimes of violence because the buildings were occupied. Certainly an

argument can be made that this issue involves a factual question that

requires a jury to decide it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately for Roselli, that argument has been repeatedly rejected

by the courts. See U.S. v. Blair , 734 F.3d 218, 227

- 28 (3 rd Cir. 2013):

Blair’s arguments fail, however, because Almendarez

– Torres has not been narrowed and remains the law. Alleyne ,J

- S74027

- 14

- 2

-

133 S.Ct. at 2160 n. 1. Descamps and Alleyne do nothing to restrict the established exception under Almendarez

– Torres that allows judges to consider prior convictions. When the pertinent documents show, as they do in this case, that the prior conviction s are for separate crimes against separate victims at separate times, Alleyne does not somehow muddy the record and convert the separateness issue into a jury question. Alleyne was written against the backdrop of Almendarez

– Torres and existing ACCA jurisp rudence. Had the Supreme Court meant to say that all details related to prior convictions are beyond judicial notice, it would have said so plainly,as that would have been a marked departure from existing law.

Arguments like Blair's have been rejected by numerous courts.

Thus, I agree with the Majority that Alleyne provides no succor for

Roselli.
<PAGE>
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 GA Financial, Inc.

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of GA Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") , I,
John M. Kish, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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 Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

    /s/ John M. Kish
    ----------------
    John M. Kish
    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
    November 14, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by ss. 906 has been
provided to GA Financial, Inc. and will be retained by GA Financial, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 6, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 132151(45) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. LILLIAN KREBS, MARK KREBS, Stephen J. Markman, FRED KREBS and KREBSVIEW FARMS, Justices Plaintiffs,

v SC: 132151 COA: 258813 Ingham CC: 03-000807-CK WILLIAM and SALLY NYGREN, Defendants-Appellants,

and

SECURA INSURANCE, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s December 28, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0530 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 6, 2007

Clerk
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15

- 279V

Filed: December 21, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BRITTANY STALLINGS BENOIT

, * UNPUBLISHED

as mother and natural guardian, and *

ARSENE BENOIT, as father and natural *

guardian of GABRIEL CASH BE NOIT, * Special Master Hamilton

- Fieldman

*

Petitioner s

, *

*

v. *

* Voluntary dismissal under

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine Rule 21(a).

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey S. Pop

, Beverly Hills, CA , for Petitioner s

. Glenn MacLeod , United States Department of Justice , Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1

On March 18, 2015

, Brittany Stallings and Arsene B en oit (“Petitioner s ”) filed a petition

for compensation on behalf of their minor son, Gabriel Cash Benoit, under the National

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Ac t”).

Petitioner s alleged that the administration of Diphtheria

- Tetanus

- acellular

- Pertussis ( “ DTaP ” ),

Haemophilus influenza type B ( “ HiB ” ), Polio, Pneumococcal, Rotavirus, and Hepatitis B ( “ Hep

B ” ) vaccines on March 29, 2013 caused Gabriel Benoit to suffer from injuries that resulted in his

death.

1 B ecause this u npublished Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website,

in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 and note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine

Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that

satisfies the criteria in § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a

motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the

undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such

mater ial will be deleted from public access.2 On November 13, 2015, the undersigned issued a Notice informing Petitioners that 240

days had passed since the ir petition was filed, and that they had the option of continuing or

withdrawing their petitio n. On December 14 , 2015, P etitioners filed a Notice of Withdrawal of

the Petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 21(b).

P ursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a), the above

- captioned case is hereby dismissed . The

Clerk of Court is hereby instructed that a judgment sha ll not enter in the instant case pursuant

to Vaccine Rule 21(a).

CONCLUSION

Proceedings are concluded in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master
Marlon EAGLIN v. EUNICE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

NO. 2017-C-1875

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

IN RE: Chief Randy Fontenot, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Eunice; City of Eunice;-Defendant(s)

Granted. See Order Attached.

On Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, No. C-161766-A, Division A; Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 17-127.

And, whereas, the Court has this date, pursuant to Article 5, Section 5, of the Constitution of Louisiana, made and issued the following order, to wit-"It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the District Court and the Court of Appeal *113send up the record in Duplicate of the case; and that counsel for all parties be notified."

Now, therefore, the said District Court and the Court of Appeal is hereby commanded, in the name of the State of Louisiana and of this Honorable Court, to send up forthwith to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 1, at the City of New Orleans, the record in duplicate of the above-entitled case.

Witness the Honorable Justices of the

Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, on

this 9th day of March, in the year of our

Lord, Two Thousand-Eighteen.

_________________________

John Tarlton Olivier

Clerk of Court

*/s/*

Deputy Clerk of 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50402

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINALD DWAIN HART,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-01-CR-96-ALL

--------------------

December 11, 2002

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Dwain Hart pleaded guilty to count 1 of an

indictment charging him with distribution of crack cocaine. Hart

has appealed his sentence. Hart contends that the district court

erred in determining that he is a “career offender” under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because Hart had previously been convicted for

at least two prior controlled substance felony offenses. Hart

contends that the prior convictions were related because they

were consolidated for trial and for sentencing. See U.S.S.G.
No. 02-50402

-2-

§ 4A1.2, comment. (n.3.). Hart concedes that this court held to

the contrary in United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479, 482-83

(5th Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds, Buford v. United

States, 532 U.S. 59, 63-66 (2001), and United States v. Ford, 996

F.2d 83, 85-86 (5th Cir. 1993). Hart contends that Garcia and

Ford should be re-examined in light of Vallez v. State, 21 S.W.3d

778, 783 (Tex. App. 2000)). 

Because this question was not raised in the district court,

we review it for plain error. See United States v. Deville, 278

F.3d 500, 509-10 (5th Cir. 2002). Under FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b),

this court may correct forfeited errors only when the appellant

shows the following factors: (1) there is an error, (2) that is

clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. 

United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)

(en banc). Because Hart’s argument was rejected by this court in

Garcia and Ford, Hart cannot show that the district court

committed a clear or obvious error. See United States v.

Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 358 (5th Cir. 1998). The judgment is

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

I, Daniel T. McCoy, Chief Executive Officer of Keegan Resources Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(i)

the Annual Report on Form 20-F, of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)

the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | By:    | /s/  Daniel T. McCoy   
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | Daniel T. McCoy        
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | September 30, 2008     

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ExhibIt 27
Financial Data Schedule
 "This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from June 30, 1997 10QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements."
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-START>                         APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                            70,706
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                     2,752
<ALLOWANCES>                      0
<INVENTORY>                       18,343,917
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  73,458
<PP&E>                            46,437
<DEPRECIATION>                         (553,006)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         17,910,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             24,734
<BONDS>                           16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0    
<PREFERRED>                       1,212
<COMMON>                          46,754
<OTHER-SE>                        17,821,806
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      17,910,806
<SALES>                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  69,725
<CGS>                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     3,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   65,812
<INCOME-TAX>                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    65,812
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      65,812
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .001
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13788-13789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05086]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE


SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, March 
28, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. ET. The purpose of this meeting is to consider 
grant applications for the 2nd quarter of FY 2022, and other business.

ADDRESSES: The Nathan Deal Judicial Center, 330 Capitol Avenue SE, 
Atlanta, GA, 30334.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Mattiello, Executive 
Director, State Justice Institute, 12700 Fair Lakes

[[Page 13789]]

Circle, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA 22033, 703-660-4979, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85e6eaebf1e4e6f1c5f6efecabe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f4c40415b4e4c5b6f5c454601484059">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 10702(f).

Jonathan D. Mattiello,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2022-05086 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SYMC-NAMRenewal2012_Ex10.2




Exhibit 10.2









AMENDMENT THREE TO THE STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE SYMANTEC OUTSOURCED NORTH AMERICAN SMB & MID-MARKET RENEWAL PROGRAM BETWEEN SYMANTEC CORPORATION AND RAINMAKER SYSTEMS, INC.


This Amendment Three (“Amendment Three”) is made to the Statement of Work for the Symantec Outsourced North American SMB and Midmarket Renewal Program (“SOW”) with an effective date of April 1, 2008, by and between Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) and Rainmaker Systems, Inc. (“Rainmaker”), as amended.  Terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment Three shall have the meaning as defined in the SOW. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment Three and the SOW, the terms of this Amendment Three shall govern. 


WHEREAS, Symantec and Rainmaker entered into a Master Services Agreement dated June 29, 2006, as amended (the “Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, Symantec and Rainmaker entered into the SOW pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, and amended that SOW effective September 17, 2009 and April 1, 2010; and


WHEREAS, Symantec and Rainmaker desire to further amend the SOW effective as of April 1, 2012 (“Amendment Three Effective Date”).


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the SOW as follows:    


1.    Commencement/Timeline/Territory.  The new expiration date of the SOW shall be March 31, 2014.  


2.    No Other Modifications.  Except as modified by this Amendment Three, the terms of the SOW, as amended, remain in full force and effect.  


* * * * * * * *


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment Three as of the Amendment Three Effective Date above, and each party warrants that its respective signatory whose signature appears below is duly authorized by all necessary and appropriate corporate action to execute this Amendment Three on behalf of such party.


    
	
								
	RAINMAKER SYSTEMS, INC.:
	 
	 
	SYMANTEC CORPORATION:

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ TIMOTHY BURNS
	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ HENRI ISENBERG

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Name:
	Timothy Burns
	 
	 
	Name:
	Henri Isenberg

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Title:
	CFO
	 
	 
	 
	Title:
	Vice President
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Date:
	3/12/2012
	 
	 
	 
	Date:
	3/9/2012
#### Juan CASTILLO, AKA Juan Lopez, AKA Luis Lopez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72193

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 7, 2017

Juan Castillo, Pro Se

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Nor-wood, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Co-hn J. Tucker, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*621MEMORANDUM **

Juan Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that even if Castillo was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, he did not suffer harm rising to the level of persecution. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (being beaten, robbed and accosted by a mob did not compel finding of past persecution, and harm to associate was not ‘closely tied’ to petitioner). Further, the BIA did not err in finding that Castillo failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. *See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch,*816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016); *see also Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Castillo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Castillo’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 31.3



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Kim Mayyasi, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Gensym Corporation;



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. [Intentionally Omitted]



4. The registrant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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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) [Reserved];



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                         |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: September 22, 2005 |  | /s/ KIM MAYYASI                      
|                         |  | Kim Mayyasi                          
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
#### TILLMAN & CO. VS. ADAMS & CO.

Appeal from Hill county.

*Attachment*— Principal *and Agent.*— If the principal authorized and directed the agent to sue out the attachment, or knowing his purpose to do so, sanctioned his action, he is liable for the malice *445of the agent. If the principal, although he did not in any way participate in the malicious acts of the agent, yet if he afterwards ratified, adopted or approved the same, he is liable for the malice of the agent.

Opinion by

Willson, J.