alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12

- 11013 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

–

Appellee ,

v.
SYLVIA JEAN WILLETT, also known as Jean Meeks Willett,

Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:11

- CR

- 31

- 1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sylvia Jean Willett pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and to six counts of health care fraud. Willett appeals the sentence imposed, arguing that the district court erred in applying a leadership enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 3B1.1 (a) (2011) because she was the organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive . We review

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should no t be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 25, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 12-11013 Document: 00512452959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2013No. 12

- 11013
the district court’s § 3B1.1 determination for clea r error. United States v. Scroggins , 485 F.3d 824, 834 (5th Cir. 2007). In her sole point of error, Willett argues that the g overnment failed to show that her employe e s were willing participants in her criminal activity and that the activity was otherwise extensive

. “A ‘participant’ is a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.1 (2011)

. The district court’s application of the enhancement was not clearly erroneous. Willett, through her two companies, charged insurance companies for medical equipment that doctors did not order and that their patients did not receive. The record reflects that to facilitate the fraud, Willett directed at least five employe es to alter, change, or f alsify documents and invoices. The employees removed product code stickers that doctors had placed on documents and replaced them with codes for more expensive equipment. The employees also obliterated product codes and wrote in new codes that were provided by Willett. Employees used photocopied doctors’ signatures and , at times, f orged the signatures themselves. Willett’s employees knew that the se activities were wrong and also knew that their activities formed the basis for
in surance claims. Accordingly, a finding that there were five or more participants in the health care fraud was plausible in light of the record as a whole

. See United States v. Dadi , 235 F.3d 945, 952 (5th Cir. 2000)

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

.

2 Case: 12-11013 Document: 00512452959 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2013
#### Maui Muscle Sports Club Kahana, LLC v. Association of Apartment Owners of Valley Isle Resort

CAAP-13-0000452

07/23/2014

Dismissed, Vacated and Remanded
#### Veloric v. Doe; Heffler, In re

10/14/2015

664 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 465
# Leading the way: Pacific Leadership Academy

/ Published Feb. 10, 2021
HONOLULU, 
Two Defense Logistics Agency Energy East Pacific employees graduated from the Pacific Leadership Academy Senior Leaders Class of 2020 in Honolulu, Jan. 29. 

John Reed, a management and program analyst, attended the Senior Leaders program. Inventory Management Specialist and Contracting Officer's Representative Tony Scales attended the Emerging Leaders program.

“The courses help John and Tony learn more about themselves, gain a better understanding of governmental organizations and – most importantly – build upon leadership competencies that will continue to enhance their future learning and federal service,” said Ralph Wells, DLA Energy East Pacific Deputy Director. 

The two programs offer a series of managerial/leadership competencies, knowledge, skills and behavior that are critical for success based on research done by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

As part of the curriculum, Reed developed an Individual Action Plan to improve the Wake Island ground fuel resupply to improve fuel storage and reduce recurring costs. His concepts were incorporated into a $1.2 million multiple fuel facility repairs project that is currently in the design phase. The anticipated savings accrued after completion of the project will help fund future sustainment, restoration & modernization programs. 

“The Senior Leaders program was full of unique experiences, allowing me to improve as a leader in government,” Reed said. “My biggest takeaway was the leadership academics. I gained insight on essential skills in critical thinking, communication, and interpersonal relationships to better lead teams for organizational success.”    

As part of his coursework, Scales developed a Defense Fuel Support Point transportation service contingency operation plan. The plan covers “cradle to grave” operating procedures when emergency fuel support is needed outside normal working hours. The plan offers “around the clock” support when emergency requirements exist and minimizes or eliminates the need for overtime compensation.

“The Emerging Leaders program gave me the opportunity to collaborate with personnel from federal agencies and future leaders of the warfighters we support,” Scales said. “The hands-on leadership scenarios helped me gain insight into other leader’s thought processes and garner solutions to challenges.”     

As a result of COIVD-19 safety practices, the 2020 Pacific Leadership Academy program was modified with distanced learning. Students and instructors used virtual training applications to cover coursework and complete assignments. 

The Pacific Leadership Academy is an annual program of the Honolulu-Pacific Federal Executive Board. Started in 2003, the Academy has graduated more than 1,000 mid-to-senior level fellows and is designed to meet the leadership development needs of selected federal professionals who work in federal government organizations in the Pacific Rim.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                                      SUBSIDIARIES

-     NHancement Technologies North America, Inc.  (formerly named Voice Plus,
      Inc.), a California corporation;

-     Infotel Technologies (Pte) Ltd, a Singapore corporation;

-     NHancement Technologies Software Group, Inc., a California corporation;

-     NHancement Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation;

-     18474 Yukon Inc., a Yukon Territory (Canada) corporation;

-     NHancement Technologies (India) Pte. Ltd., an India corporation; and

-     NHancement Technologies International, a British Virgin Islands
      corporation.
Exhibit 10.2(b)


   Schedule of Secured Convertible Note (refinancings after October 31, 2005)
           Issued by NCT Group, Inc. to Carole Salkind on May 25, 2006



    Issue Date       Due Date          Principal           Conversion Price
    ----------       --------          ---------           ----------------
     05/25/06        11/25/06         $343,012.25       Greater of: (i) $0.0020;
                                                        or (ii) the par value of
                                                        NCT Group, Inc.
                                                        common stock on the
                                                        date of conversion
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2073 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2073

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                                 An Act

  
 
  To designate the Warren B. Rudman United States Courthouse, the Jamie 
L. Whitten Federal Building, and the William H. Natcher Federal Building 
and United States Courthouse.

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

SECTION 1. WARREN B. RUDMAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse to be constructed in 
Concord, New Hampshire, shall be known and designated as the ``Warren 
B. Rudman United States Courthouse''.
    (b) Legal References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the United 
States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Warren B. Rudman United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. JAMIE L. WHITTEN FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at the northeast 
corner of the intersection of 14th Street and Independence Avenue, 
Southwest, in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building''.
    (b) Legal References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 
building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building''.
SEC. 3. WILLIAM H. NATCHER FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
COURTHOUSE.
    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 242 East Main Street in Bowling Green, Kentucky, shall be 
known and designated as the ``William H. Natcher Federal Building and 
United States Courthouse''.
    (b) Legal References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 
building and United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William H. Natcher Federal 
Building and United States Courthouse''.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
2016-1906.

#### State ex rel. Sanders v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-496, 2016-Ohio-7704. On appellant’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER PARKS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1851

[October 31, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Mariya Weekes, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 09-007878-CF10B.

Christopher Parks, Sneads, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



 Exhibit 10.23 
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, Casual Male Retail Group, Inc., (formerly Designs, Inc., “CMRG”) and David A. Levin (“Executive”) entered into a certain Employment
Agreement dated as of March 31, 2000, as amended by Letter Agreement dated April 10, 2001, Second Amendment to Employment Agreement dated January 30, 2003, Third Amendment to Employment Agreement dated July 9, 2003 and by Fourth
Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of June 29, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, Company and
Executive wish to amend, modify and/or restate certain terms, provisions, conditions, and covenants of the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of
the foregoing, and of the promises, covenants, conditions and agreements contained herein, and for One Dollar ($1.00) and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby expressly acknowledged, the Company
and Executive hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is hereby substituted in lieu thereof: 

  

	 	“3.	COMPENSATION 

 As Compensation for the employment
services to be rendered by the Executive hereunder; the Company agrees to pay to Executive, and Executive agrees to accept, payable in equal installments in accordance with Company practice an annual base salary of $600,000, effective as of
May 9, 2005.” 
  

	2.	Except as herein specifically modified and amended, all of the terms, provisions, conditions, and covenants of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and shall be
deemed unchanged except to the extent modified and amended herein. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fifth Amendment
to Employment Agreement as a sealed instrument, in any number of counterpart copies, each of which shall be deemed an original for all purposes, as of the day and year first written below. 
  

									
	CASUAL MALE RETAIL GROUP, INC. (Company)	 		 	
					
	By:	 	 /s/ DENNIS R. HERNREICH
	 		 	 May 27, 2005
	 	
		 	Dennis R. Hernreich	 		 	Date	 	
		 	Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer,	 		 		 	
		 	Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary	 		 		 	
					
		 	Executive	 		 		 	
					
		 	 /s/ DAVID A. LEVIN
	 		 	 May 27, 2005
	 	
		 	David A. Levin	 		 	Date
**EXHIBIT 13**
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 of Tramford International Limited (the “Company”) on Form20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), we, Jiang Xin Hao and Michael Siu, the Principal Executive Officerand Principal Financial Officer of the Company, respectively certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of ourknowledge:
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
     Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, thiscertification is being furnished and not deemed filed.   June 30, 2005            /s/ Jeff Qian    Jeff Qian     Chief Executive Officer            /s/ Michael Siu    Michael Siu     Chief Financial Officer  
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1413

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, to extend

the authorization of appropriations for the Office of Government Ethics

for eight years, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 6 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, to extend the authorization of appropriations for

the Office of Government Ethics for eight years, 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 ‘‘Office of Government

5 Ethics Authorization Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. GIFT ACCEPTANCE AUTHORITY.

7 Section 403 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978

8 (5 U.S.C. App. 5) is amended by—
2

•S 1413 IS

1 (1) inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Upon the request’’;

2 and

3 (2) adding at the end thereof the following:

4 ‘‘(b)(1) The Director is authorized to accept and uti5 lize on behalf of the United States, any gift, donation, be6 quest, or devise of money, use of facilities, personal prop7 erty, or services for the purpose of aiding or facilitating

8 the work of the Office of Government Ethics.

9 ‘‘(2) No gift may be accepted—

10 ‘‘(A) that attaches conditions inconsistent with

11 applicable laws or regulations; or

12 ‘‘(B) that is conditioned upon or will require

13 the expenditure of appropriated funds that are not

14 available to the Office of Government Ethics.

15 ‘‘(3) The Director shall establish written rules setting

16 forth the criteria to be used in determining whether the

17 acceptance of contributions of money, services, use of fa18 cilities, or personal property under this subsection would

19 reflect unfavorably upon the ability of the Office of Gov20 ernment Ethics or any employee to carry out its respon21 sibilities or official duties in a fair and objective manner,

22 or would compromise the integrity or the appearance of

23 the integrity of its programs or any official involved in

24 those programs.’’.
3

•S 1413 IS

1 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA2 TIONS.

3 The text of section 405 of the Ethics in Government

4 Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 5) is amended to read as fol5 lows: ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry

6 out the provisions of this title and for no other purpose

7 such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal years begin8 ning with fiscal year 1995 and ending with fiscal year

9 2002.’’.

10 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

11 This Act shall become effective upon October 1, 1994.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Glenn A. Pendergraph, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 257]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered November 29, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [2]). Defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial based upon prosecutorial misconduct is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not object to any of the alleged instances of misconduct *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Smith,*129 AD3d 1549, 1549 [2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 971 [2015]). In any event, we conclude that *1704“[a]ny improprieties were not so pervasive or egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial” *(People v Hendrix,*132 AD3d 1348, 1348 [2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 1145 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

We reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. With respect to the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct, inasmuch as they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial, “defense counsel’s failure to object thereto did not deprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel” *(id.*at 1348). With respect to the remaining instances of alleged ineffective assistance, we conclude that defendant has failed to demonstrate a lack of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s alleged shortcomings *(see generally People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]). Moreover, considering the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation *(see People v Rivera,*112 AD3d 1288, 1288 [2013], *lv denied*23 NY3d 1024 [2014]; *see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

We further reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in denying his motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 without a hearing inasmuch as defendant failed to show that the alleged newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered prior to trial in the exercise of reasonable diligence *(see People v Thomas,*136 AD3d 1390, 1391 [2016], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1140 [2016], *denied reconsideration*28 NY3d 974 [2016]).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court’s *Molineux*ruling deprived him of a fair trial *(see People v Thomas,*85 AD3d 1572, 1572 [2011], *affd*21 NY3d 226 [2013]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, DeJo-seph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.
3342 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 14 /Thursday, January 22, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Proclaiming Certain Lands as

Reservation for the Cow Creek Band of

Umpqua Tribe of Indians in Oregon

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of reservation

proclamation.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs proclaimed

approximately 4.07 acres as an addition

to the reservation of the Cow Creek

Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians on

December 19, 1997. This notice is

published in the exercise of authority

delegated by the Secretary of the Interior

to the Assistant Secretary—Indian

Affairs by 209 DM 8.1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry E. Scrivner, Bureau of Indian

Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services,

MS–4510/MIB/–Code 220, 1849 C

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240,

telephone (202) 208–7737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proclamation was issued according to

the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986;

25 U.S.C. 467), for the tract of land

described below. The land was

proclaimed to be an addition to and part

of the reservation of the Cow Creek

Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians for the

exclusive use of Indians on that

reservation who are entitled to reside at

the Cow Creek Reservation by

enrollment or tribal membership.

Reservation of the Cow Creek Band of

Umpqua Tribe of Indians

Douglas County, Oregon

The following described real property

is located in the Northwest quarter of

Section 27, Township 30 South, Range

5 West, W.M., Douglas County, Oregon.

Beginning at a 5⁄8′′ iron rod located on

the easterly right of way of County Road

Number 1 (also known as Old Pacific

Highway Number 99), said 5⁄8′′ iron rod

bears North 30°34′51′′ West 335.30 feet

from the Southwest corner of the Long

Subdivision to the City of Canyonville

(See Volume 6, Page 63, Douglas County

Surveyor’s Office); thence along said

Easterly right of way of said County

Road Number 1, North 30°34′51′′ West

750.62 feet to a 5⁄8′′ iron rod; thence

leaving said Easterly right of way and

running North 87°50′25′′ East 275.35

feet to a 3⁄4′′ iron pipe; thence North

87°58′12′′ East 150.92 feet to a 5⁄8′′ iron

rod; thence South 3°47′25′′ East 246.10

feet to a 5⁄8′′ iron rod; thence South

8°49′22′′ East 421.37 feet to a 5⁄8′′ iron

rod; thence due West 125.00 feet to the

point of beginning. Containing 4.07

acres, more or less.

Title to the land described above is

conveyed subject to any valid existing

easements for public roads and

highways, for public utilities and for

railroads and pipelines and any other

right-of-way or reservation of record.

Dated: December 19, 1997.

Kevin Gover,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 98–1420 Filed 1–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P