alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.6Cing2587.A.004This Amendment cing2587.A.004, effective as of April 1, 2008 (“Effective Date”), between**StarTek USA, Inc. (“StarTek”),**a Delaware corporation, and **AT&T Mobility LLC,**(“AT&T Mobility”) aDelaware limited liability company, on behalf of itself and its Affiliates, amends the statementof work described below.**RECITALS**WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless and StarTek entered into a Provider Master Service Agreement on January 1,2002 (the “MSA”);WHEREAS AT&T Wireless and StarTek executed Amendment No. 001 dated April 1, 2004 to the MSAincorporating a Statement of Work (“SOW”) to provide services to AT&T Wireless;WHEREAS AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. assigned its rights and delegated its duties under the MSA andall statements of work thereunder to AT&T Mobility;WHEREAS AT&T Mobility and StarTek desire to amend the term of the of the SOW;NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agreeto amend the SOW as follows: 1. Section IV. “Term” of the SOW is hereby deleted in its entirety and it is replaced by thefollowing:“IV. ‘Term’ This SOW shall begin on April 1, 2004 (“Effective Date”) and end on April 30,2008.” 2. Except as amended by this Amendment, the SOW is not otherwise modified, revoked orsuperseded and remain in full force and effect.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Amendment as of the effective date.       **StarTek USA, Inc.** **AT&T Mobility LLC by itsauthorized Representative AT&TServices, Inc.**       By: /s/ Patrick M. Hayes By: /s/ Richard Steadman              Printed Name: Patrick M. Hayes Printed Name: Richard Steadman              Title: COO Title: AVP Global Strategic Sourcing              Date: 3/31/2008 Date: 31 March 2008       **Proprietary Information** The information contained in this Agreement is not for use or disclosure outside AT&T Mobility,StarTek, their affiliated companies and their third party representatives, except under writtenAgreement by the contracting Parties.
DA 13 - 0861 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

201 4 MT 303N STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaint iff and Appellee, v. LISA R. HUEY,

Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the F ourth Judicial District, In and For the County

of Missoula, Cause No. DC - 03 - 162 Honorable Robert L. Deschamps, III, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant: Lisa R. Huey (Self

- Represented) , Butte, Montana For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler , Assistant Attorney General, Helena, M ontana Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula Count y Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: October 29, 2014

Decided: November 18, 2014 Filed:

_____________________ _____________________ Clerk November 18 2014

Case Number: DA 13-08612

Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) , Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by me morandum opinion and shall not be cited and doe s not serve as precedent . Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Lisa Huey appeals from the District Court’s order of Decemb er 4, 2014 , denying her motion to reconsider the sentenc e imposed upon her after a probation violation. We affirm. ¶3 In January 2012 the District Court revoked Huey’s probation and sentenced her to a term of imprisonment pursuant to her original sentence. Huey contested the amount of credit she received for time served. The District Court denied Huey’s request for additional credit for time served in a hand- written order dated March 1, 2012. Huey filed a motion to reconsider that order and the District Court denied that motion in another handwritten order dated December 4, 2014 (sic, should be 2013) . O n appeal Huey contends that the order denying the motion to reconsider is unlawful because it was handwritten and illegible. Huey does not appeal from the underlying order of March 1, 2014 , denying her request for additional credit for time served. ¶4 Huey has not presented any legal reason why the order denying her motion to reconsider was unlawful and the District Court’s handwriting is clearly legible. Whi le Huey cites the Uniform District Court Rules and the Rules of the Montana Fourth3

Judicial District, she provides no authority under those rules to invalidate the order that is at issue in this case. Further, even if the order at issue were unlawful, the District Court’s prior order denying the requested relief is of record and Huey did not appeal from it. ¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our Internal Operating Rules , which provides for me morandum opinions . The issues in this case are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly interpreted. ¶6 Affirmed. /S/ MIKE McGRATH We Concur: /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ JIM RICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES R. HAMILTON

,

Defendant Below

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee. §

§ No. 49, 2015

§

§

§

§ Court Below : Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID 9508006908

§

§

Submitted: March 26, 2015

Decided: May 21 , 2015

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice ; HOLLAND , and VAUGHN , Justices

O R D E R

This 21st day of May 2015

, the Court has carefully considered appellant’s

opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal . We find it

manifest that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed

. The appellant

completed his sentences in 2002 and thus ha d no standing to file a motion for

post conviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61

. 1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

1 See Baltazar v. State , 2015 WL 257334, *3 (Del. Jan. 20, 2015).
Case: 1:01-cv-03871 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:120
Case: 1:01-cv-03871 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:121
Case: 1:01-cv-03871 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:122
Case: 1:01-cv-03871 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:123
Case: 1:01-cv-03871 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:124
Case: 1:01-cv-03871 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:125
Case: 1:01-cv-03871 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:126
Case: 1:01-cv-03871 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:127
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50517

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAUL ANCHONDO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-1913-1

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Saul Anchondo has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Anchondo has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50517 Document: 00513956365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
No. 16-50517

2

review.1 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 

1 Counsel contends that a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel exists but 

recognizes that a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the appropriate method for raising 

this claim. We agree with the latter assessment and therefore decline to consider the claim 

without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 

2014). 

 Case: 16-50517 Document: 00513956365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6499

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES ANTHONY BENNETT, a/k/a Tony, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-98-599) Submitted: July 24, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Anthony Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Anthony Bennett pleaded guilty to violations of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(u), 922(g)(1), and 922(j) (West 2000). He initially was sentenced to ninety-seven months in prison. Upon the Government’s motion, the district court reduced Bennett’s sentence to sixty months. Bennett now appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, in which Bennett claimed he was entitled to a further reduction of his sentence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 599. Commentary to Amendment 599 makes clear that the amendment applies only to convictions under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000). Bennett was not convicted of violating that statute. Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion for reduction of sentence, and we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 15 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 16 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 17 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 18 of 19
Case 09-49694 Doc 71 Filed 07/27/12 Entered 07/30/12 07:32:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 19 of 19
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         3,343,047
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,087,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                   584,610
<INVENTORY>                                    349,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,533,306
<PP&E>                                         1,019,295
<DEPRECIATION>                                 144,712
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,500,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,803,570
<BONDS>                                        431,445
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       40,150
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,225,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,500,184
<SALES>                                        3,354,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,154,177
<CGS>                                          2,863,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,378,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               37,917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               200,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             65,103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,125,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,125,291)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.33)
        



</TABLE>
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 309 

Supporting the preservation of Internet entrepreneurs and small businesses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. AYOTTE, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. 

MERKLEY, and Mr. HELLER) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Finance 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the preservation of Internet entrepreneurs and 

small businesses. 

Whereas the United States enjoys a strong Internet retail 

market, which, for the past decade, has provided consumers in the United States with the opportunity to purchase quality products and services at competitive prices; 

Whereas the free Internet marketplace has enabled a large 

number of small retailers and entrepreneurs across the 

Nation to establish and strengthen businesses on various 

e-commerce platforms and therefore protect and create 

jobs, increase consumer choice, create competition in the 

retail industry, and provide quality goods and services at 

reasonable and often discounted prices; 

Whereas any Federal legislation that would upset the free 

and fair Internet marketplace and allow State governVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:00 Nov 03, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR309.IS SR309

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 309 IS 

ments to impose new, onerous and burdensome sales taxcollecting schemes on out-of-State, Internet-enabled small 

businesses would adversely impact hundreds of thousands 

of jobs, reduce consumer choice, and impede the growth 

and development of interstate commerce; and 

Whereas at a time when national unemployment numbers are 

high and businesses across the country are struggling to 

keep their doors open, the Federal Government should 

promote pro-growth and pro-business policies instead of 

enacting legislation that extracts additional taxes from 

our Nation’s Internet-enabled businesses: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that Con2 gress should not enact any legislation that would grant 

3 State governments the authority to impose any new bur4 densome or unfair tax collecting requirements on small 

5 Internet businesses and entrepreneurs, which would ulti6 mately hurt the economy of, and consumers in, the United 

7 States. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### HODECKER, Respondent, v. HODECKER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Anna Hodeeker against Frederick Hodecker.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the defendant to withdraw his demurrer and answer upon payment of the costs of the demurrer and of this appeal. See 46 N. Y. Supp. 1073.
#### David S. Finnerty, an Infant, by Janice Finnerty, His Mother and Natural Guardian, Respondent, v Brookhaven Memorial Hospital et al., Defendants, and Estelle Rosenberg et al., as Executrices of Milton Rosenberg, Deceased, et al., Appellants.

In a medical malpractice action, defendants Rosenberg and Mann appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated June 8, 1984, as, upon reargument, denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the *694action as against them, and defendant Molinoff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court (Gowan, J.), dated June 20, 1984, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against him.

Order dated June 8, 1984 reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, cross motion granted, and action dismissed as against defendants Rosenberg and Mann.

Order dated June 20, 1984 reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and action dismissed as against defendant Molinoff.

In opposing appellants’ respective motion and cross motion for summary judgment, plaintiff has neither submitted sufficient proof to raise an issue of fact for trial *(see, Baly v Chrysler Credit Corp.,*94 AD2d 781), nor established the likelihood of uncovering such proof in the discovery process *(see, Scharlack v Richmond Mem. Hosp.,*103 AD2d 739, *affd*63 NY2d 900). The appellants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action as against them, and it was improper for Special Term to deny them such relief. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 27 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 27

Designating January 26, 2011, as ``National Kawasaki Disease Awareness 
                                 Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2011

Mr. Webb submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating January 26, 2011, as ``National Kawasaki Disease Awareness 
                                 Day''.

Whereas Kawasaki disease is a serious illness characterized by the inflammation 
        of blood vessels throughout the body;
Whereas symptoms of Kawasaki disease include fever, rash, swelling, irritation, 
        redness of the whites of the eyes, and inflammation of the mouth, lips, 
        and throat;
Whereas Kawasaki disease primarily affects young children and is a leading cause 
        of acquired heart disease in the United States;
Whereas the Centers for Disease Control estimates that in 2006 approximately 
        5,500 individuals with Kawasaki disease were hospitalized in the United 
        States;
Whereas Kawasaki disease affects children of all races, but occurs most often in 
        children of Asian and Pacific Island descent;
Whereas the cause of Kawasaki disease is unknown;
Whereas Kawasaki disease can usually be treated if diagnosed promptly, but can 
        cause major health problems or even death if left untreated;
Whereas there is no test to definitively diagnose cases of Kawasaki disease;
Whereas a lack of awareness among health professionals and the public may 
        contribute to the underdiagnosis of Kawasaki disease; and
Whereas, on January 26, 1961, Dr. Tomisaku Kawasaki saw his first patient who 
        suffered from what would later be termed Kawasaki disease: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates January 26, 2011, as ``National Kawasaki 
        Disease Awareness Day'';
            (2) recognizes the importance of awareness in diagnosing 
        and properly treating cases of Kawasaki disease;
            (3) urges all people of the United States to educate 
        themselves about Kawasaki disease and the signs and symptoms of 
        Kawasaki disease; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Francis P. Barton, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of UTStarcom, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 functions):



|Date: June 21, 2006                                                                                   | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/FRANCIS P. BARTONFrancis P. Barton Executive Vice President of Finance and
Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks