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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 784

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to impose a penalty for encouraging others to violate the provisions of the National Labor Relations

Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. SIMON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to impose a

penalty for encouraging others to violate the provisions

of the National Labor Relations Act, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Labor Rela5 tions Penalty Act of 1995’’.
2

•S 784 IS

1 SEC. 2. PENALTIES.

2 The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151

3 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following

4 new section:

5 ‘‘PENALTY

6 ‘‘SEC. 20. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person in7 cluding a consulting firm or legal firm to encourage an

8 employer or labor organization to violate the provisions of

9 this Act.

10 ‘‘(b) If a person described in subsection (a) violates

11 the provisions of such subsection, the person shall be fined

12 by the Secretary not more than $10,000.’’.

Æ
#### Linda ROCHA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16908

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*434Submitted May 16, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed May 24, 2017

William Anthony Romaine, Attorney, Law Office of William A Romaine, Hand-ford, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Mary Horst, Deputy General Counsel, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

Before: MURGUIA and CANBY, Circuit Judges, and RUFE,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Linda Rocha appeals the district court’s order granting California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR’s”) motion for judgment on the pleadings on *res judicata*grounds. We affirm.

1.We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Rocha timely filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of CDCR. ER 1-2. The district court’s earlier judgment in favor of Defendant Groves (who at that point was the only defendant who had been served) did not trigger the 30-day window to file a notice of appeal because the judgment resolved only the claims against Groves and the district court went on to adjudicate Rocha’s claims against CDCR. *See Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc.,*375 F.3d 861, 872 (9th Cir. 2004).

2. The district court correctly held that *res judicata*barred Rocha’s claims, a decision we review de novo. *United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank,*630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). *Res judicata*requires: “(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.” *Id.*at 1150 (quoting *Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,*322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003)).

3. Regarding the first requirement, we agree with the district court that there was an identity of claims between the two lawsuits because both stemmed from the same transactional nucleus of facts: an alleged pattern of retaliation that ultimately resulted in Rocha’s termination. Rocha failed to identify any barrier to raising all of her claims during the first lawsuit. *See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,*244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001). The final two elements are met because Rocha previously filed a lawsuit against CDCR that resulted in a Rule 68 judgment, as Rocha acknowledges.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Victor Ivy BROWN, Appellant v. James MATTIS, Appellee

No. 16-5217

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: October 12, 2017

Victor Ivy Brown, Pro Se

R. Craig Lawrence, Jane M. Lyons, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

BEFORE: Tatel, Griffith, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and the supplemental pleadings filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case be remanded for reconsideration of the dismissal order filed on May 31, 2016. The district court dismissed appellant’s case sua sponte, holding that it was “barred by res judicata and by time.” Ap-pellee argues that a 2003 district court decision denying a contempt motion serves as the res judicata bar. However, despite appellee’s suggestion to the contrary, the district court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard in denying the contempt motion. Thus, unlike in Porter v. Shah, 606 F.3d 809 (D.C. Cir. 2010), the contempt decision does not serve as a res judicata bar to the instant case. Although the district court also relied on timeliness grounds in dismissing the instant case, it is not entirely clear which claims the court deemed untimely, and that court is best positioned to consider in the first instance the timeliness and other arguments raised in the parties’ briefs and supplemental pleadings.

*4Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
#### PEOPLE *v.*BLAIR.

1. Criminal Law — Evidence—Guilt.

Conviction of larceny in a store must be affirmed if there is evidence which, if believed by trier of the fact, establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (CL 1948, § 750.360).

2. Same — Sentence—Judges.

The right of a convicted criminal to be sentenced by the judge who conducted the trial is a personal right, subject to waiver.

References for Points in Headnotes

[1] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 786, 883.

[2, 3] 21 Am. Jur 2d, Criminal Law § § 525, 527.

*6503. Same — Sentence—Non Trial Judge.

Failure of defendant to objeet to being sentenced by a judge who had disqualified himself from trying defendant on charge of larceny in a store *held,*to be a waiver of the right to be sentenced by the same judge who accepted plea of guilty (CL 1948, § 750.360).

Appeal from Lenawee; Kelley (James J., Jr.), J., presiding.

Submitted Division 2 May 7, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 4,228.)

Decided June 10, 1968.

Earl Blair was convicted of larceny in a store. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

' *Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, and *Harvey A. Ko-selka,*Prosecuting Attorney, for tbe people.

*Robertson & Rartlow (Alexander M. Des Chenes, Jr.,*of counsel), for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals bis nonjury conviction and sentence for larceny in a store.* He asserts as basis for appellate relief 2 claims, namely: the evidence introduced against him did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and his constitutional rights were yiolated when he was sentenced by a judge who had disqualified himself from trying-defendant because that.judge was convinced before the trial of defendant’s guilt and the record fails to disclose the unavailability of the trial judge for sentencing.

Appointed defense counsel, Alexander M. Des Chenes, Jr., has done a creditable job in presenting this appeal, but a review of the trial transcript discloses ample evidence, which, if believed by the trier *651of the fact, establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant raised no objection to being sentenced, by Judge Martin, who bad disqualified himself. As-pointed out in *People*v. *McKinley*(1966), 5 Mich App 230, the right to be sentenced by the trial judge’ is a personal right, subject to waiver. That right was waived here.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred.

*

 OL 1948, § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.592).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

MIGUEL ANGEL GARCIA-AGUILAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50336

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01034-WQH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016** 

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Angel Garcia-Aguilar appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand for resentencing.

FILED

DEC 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Garcia-Aguilar argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role

reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). After GarciaAguilar was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission issued

Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), which amended the commentary to the

minor role Guideline. The Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct

appeal. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). 

The Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should

consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. See U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Because we cannot determine from the record

whether the district court considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate

Garcia-Aguilar’s sentence and remand for resentencing. See Quintero-Leyva, 823

F.3d at 523-24.

VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.

2 15-50336
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-QA of Regency Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dragan Bozanic, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, 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 and belief:
 
 1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 Date: October 6, 2011
 
 DRAGAN BOZANIC
 Dragan Bozanic
 Chief Accounting Officer
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
 
 -1-
#### Albert E. McKenzie, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Graves-Quinn Corporation, Respondent, *v.*Irving Trust Company, Appellant.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*M. Carl Levine*for motion.

*William A. Onderdonk*and *Paul E. Mead,*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements, on the ground that an appeal lies as of right.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05111]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Southwest Research Institute--Cooperative 
Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium Americas

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 28, 2022, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research 
Institute--Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-
Americas (``RIC-Americas'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Lemurian Labs Inc., Ontario, CANADA, has 
been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and RIC-Americas intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32999).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 29, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 26, 2021 (86 FR 67493).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05111 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>   1


                               GENSYM CORPORATION
   EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(in thousands except per share amounts)      Three months ended         Six months ended
                                                  June 30,                   June 30,
                                              1997         1996          1997        1996
                                            -------       ------       -------      ------
<S>                                           <C>          <C>           <C>         <C>  

Weighted average common shares
  outstanding during the period               6,302        6,050         6,262       5,680

Shares issuable from assumed exercise
  of options, computed in accordance
  with the treasury stock method               --            446          --           437
                                            -------       ------       -------      ------

Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares                           6,302        6,496         6,262       6,117
                                            =======       ======       =======      ======

Net income (loss)                           $(4,659)      $  703       $(4,593)     $1,037
                                            =======       ======       =======      ======

Net income (loss) per share                 $ (0.74)      $ 0.11       $ (0.73)     $ 0.17
                                            =======       ======       =======      ======
</TABLE>





                                       21
Exhibit
      32.1

















CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACTS OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I
      Stephen Rade, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: July
                27, 2005
              By:
              /s/ Stephen
                RadeName:
                  Stephen RadeTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7767

JOHN WILEY, a/k/a James Harris,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LIEUTENANT TEGETOFF; LIEUTENANT MCROY; LIEUTENANT NASH; CORPORAL MOBLY; OFFICER CHRISLEY;

TONY FORMAN, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-8534

JOHN WILEY, a/k/a James Harris,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LIEUTENANT TEGETOFF; LIEUTENANT MCROY; LIEUTENANT NASH; CORPORAL MOBLY; OFFICER CHRISLEY;

TONY FORMAN, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-95-

2647-CCB)
2

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant

County Attorney, David Eugene Stevenson, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,

Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In No. 95-7767, Appellant appeals the district court's order

dismissing several claims and Defendants and granting him additional time to supplement his complaint. In No. 95-8534, Appellant

appeals the district court's order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for an enlargement of time, granting leave to

amend, and directing him to show cause why his Complaint against

one Defendant should not be dismissed. We dismiss the appeals for

lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed

are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral

orders.

We dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 900

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of

1992 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment

of repayment contracts between the United States and the Central Utah

Water Conservancy District dated December 28, 1965 and November

26, 1985, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 8 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995

Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary of the

Interior to allow for prepayment of repayment contracts

between the United States and the Central Utah Water

Conservancy District dated December 28, 1965 and November 26, 1985, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 900 IS

1 SECTION 1. PREPAYMENT OF REPAYMENT CERTAIN CON2 TRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND

3 THE CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY

4 DISTRICT.

5 Section 210 of the Reclamation Projects Authoriza6 tion and Adjustment Act of 1992 (106 Stat.4624) is

7 amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the

8 following: ‘‘The Secretary shall allow for prepayment of

9 repayment contracts between the United States and the

10 District dated December 28, 1965 and November 26,

11 1985, providing for repayment of the municipal and indus12 trial water delivery facilities for which repayment is pro13 vided pursuant to those contracts, under the same terms

14 and conditions as are contained in the supplemental con15 tract providing for the prepayment of the Jordan Aque16 duct System dated October 28, 1993.’’.

Æ
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 783

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to set a time limit for labor

rulings on discharge complaints, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. SIMON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to set a time

limit for labor rulings on discharge complaints, and for

other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ National Labor Rela5 tions Board Ruling Time Limit Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. BOARD RULING.

7 Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act

8 (29 U.S.C. 160(b)) is amended by inserting after the sec9 ond sentence the following new sentence: ‘‘In the case of

10 an unfair labor charge filed with the Board that involves
2

•S 783 IS

1 the discharge of an employee, the Board shall rule on such

2 charge within 30 days of the receipt of such charge by

3 the Board.’’.

Æ