alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40361 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO CASILLAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-619-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pedro Casillas appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possessing with the intent to distribute heroin. We affirm the district court’s judgment. Casillas, who was sentenced after the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), argues that he is entitled to retroactive application of Booker ’s Sixth Amendment holding, but that the remedial portion of Booker ’s holding, which made the United States SentencingNo. 05-40361 -2- Guidelines advisory, may not be applied in his case without violating the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Constitution. Casillas’s argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Austin , 432 F.3d 598, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Scroggins , 411 F.3d 572, 575-76 (5th Cir. 2005). Casillas argues, for the first time on appeal, that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As Casillas concedes, that argument also is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). Casillas raises the issue solely to preserve it for Supreme Court review. Casillas next argues that the district court erred in ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release. Casillas’s claim is not ripe for review and is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu , 428 F.3d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662); United States v. Carmichael , 343 F.3d 756, 757, 761-62 (5th Cir. 2003). Finally, Casillas argues that we should remand his case to the district court for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. The Government concedes that remand is appropriate because the judgment erroneously reflects that Casillas wasNo. 05-40361 -3- convicted of a drug offense involving 3.96 kilograms of heroin when in fact, he was convicted of an offense involving only 2.28 kilograms of heroin. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical

error. See FED . R. CRIM . P. 36. AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

David E. Hershberg, Chief Executive Officerof Globecomm Systems Inc., and Andrew C. Melfi, Chief Financial Officerof Globecomm Systems Inc., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that the quarterly report of Globecomm Systems Inc. onForm 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2005 (the"Quarterly Report") fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the QuarterlyReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Globecomm Systems Inc.

|                                              |  |                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |
|----------------------------------------------|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| Date:    November9, 2005 |  | /s/ DAVID E. HERSHBERG                                                                                          |
|                                         |  | David E. HershbergChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (PrincipalExecutive Officer)                |
|                                         |  | /s/ ANDREW C.MELFI                                                                                              |
|                                         |  | Andrew C.Melfi Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer) |
|                                              |

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to GlobecommSystems Inc. and will be retained by Globecomm Systems Inc. andfurnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16 - 7748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DICKINSON NORMAN ADIONSER, a/k/a D.C. Black , Defendant

- Appellant

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 2:03

- cr - 00081

- HCM

- JEB

- 1 )

Submitted : April 20, 2017 Decided: June 7, 2017

Before MOTZ and WYNN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part ; affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Dickinson Norman Adionser, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dickinson Norman Adionser seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his “Emergency Motion for Clarification of District Court Senior Judge Henry Coke Morgan ’s Jr. Order dated November 2, 2015, filed February 24, 2016 in Regards to Appeal Jurisdiction.” With regard to the dismissal of Adionser’s successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) claims, t he order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

c ertificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cock rell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constit utional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Adionser has not made the requisite showing with respect to these claims . Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal i n part
. With regard to the denial of Adionser’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) claims, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Adionser , No. 2:03

- cr - 00081

- HCM

- JEB

- 1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2016 )

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART ; A FFIRMED IN PART
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:260
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:261
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:262
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:263
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:264
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:265
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:266
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:267
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:268
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:269
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:270
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:271
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:272
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:273
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:274
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:275
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:276
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:277
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:278
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 20 of 37 PageID #:279
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 21 of 37 PageID #:280
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 22 of 37 PageID #:281
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 23 of 37 PageID #:282
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 24 of 37 PageID #:283
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 25 of 37 PageID #:284
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 26 of 37 PageID #:285
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 27 of 37 PageID #:286
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 28 of 37 PageID #:287
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 29 of 37 PageID #:288
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 30 of 37 PageID #:289
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 31 of 37 PageID #:290
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 32 of 37 PageID #:291
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 33 of 37 PageID #:292
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 34 of 37 PageID #:293
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 35 of 37 PageID #:294
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 36 of 37 PageID #:295
Case: 1:01-cv-04977 Document #: 40 Filed: 03/12/03 Page 37 of 37 PageID #:296
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR
THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,639
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,095
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,187
<INVENTORY>                                      2,257
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,722
<PP&E>                                          32,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,340
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,296
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,839
<SALES>                                        174,335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               174,335
<CGS>                                           82,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,055
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,886<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,164)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,316)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,848)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.67)
<FN>
<F1>Other expenses includes pretax accounting charges during the year ended June
30, 1998 of $29.9 million comprised of a writedown of goodwill of $23.5
million, restructuring costs of $5.2 million and the write-off of deferred
costs of $1.2 million related to a terminated acquisition.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Case: 1:03-cr-00779 Document #: 474 Filed: 06/15/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2577
Case: 1:03-cr-00779 Document #: 474 Filed: 06/15/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2578
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0294

IN THE MATTER OF:

W.K.,

A Youth In Need Of Care.

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Mother and Appellant’s Motion For Extension Of 

Time (First), and with good cause shown, Mother and Appellant H.R.L. is hereby 

granted an extension of time until September 20, 2024 in which to prepare, file and 

serve Mother and Appellant’s opening brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 6 2024

08/06/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0294
#### Solmaria Andrade et al., Appellants, v Thomas H. Milhorat, M.D., et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 899]—

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J), dated November 17, 2010, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Thomas H. Milhorat, Paolo A. Bolognese, L. Thierry Remy, Salvatore Insinga, Misao Nishikawa, Sol Mora, Amit Shelat, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., Chiari Institute, and Harvey Cushing Institutes of Neuroscience, and the defendant Chanland Roonprapunt pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the third cause of action, which alleged fraud, insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the respective motions of the defendants Thomas H. Milhorat, Paolo A. Bolognese, L. Thierry Remy, Salvatore Insinga, Misao Nishikawa, Sol Mora, Amit Shelat, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., Chiari Institute, and Harvey Cushing Institutes of Neuroscience, and the defendant Chanland Roonprapunt to dismiss the fraud cause of action insofar as asserted against each of them since the injuries arising from the alleged fraud are no different from those resulting from the alleged lack of informed consent and malpractice *(see Simcuski v Saeli,*44 NY2d 442 [1978]; *McNamara v Droesch,*49 AD3d 511 [2008]; *799
      *Karlin v IVF Am.,*239 AD2d 560 [1997], *mod on other grounds*93 NY2d 282 [1999]; *Luciano v Levine, 232*AD2d 378 [1996]; *Spinosa v Weinstein,*168 AD2d 32 [1991]).

The plaintiffs’ contention that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing their demand for punitive damages, insofar as it relates to the third cause of action, which alleged fraud, has been rendered academic in light of our determination. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.
# C_2013156EN.01003601.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — SIAE v Commission

(Case T-433/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)

2013/C 156/62

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Società italiana degli autori ed editori (SIAE) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, L. Vullo and S. Valentino, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Società italiana degli autori ed editori (SIAE); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Società italiana degli autori ed editori (SIAE);

| 2. | Annuls Article 4(2) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final as regards SIAE; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 4(2) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final as regards SIAE;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings;

| 5. | Orders SIAE and the Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders SIAE and the Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 405 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 405

  Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber of the United 
                             States Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2012

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber of the United 
                             States Senate.

    Resolved, That paragraph 1 of rule IV of the Rules for the 
Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United States Capitol and Senate 
Office Buildings (prohibiting the taking of pictures in the Senate 
Chamber) be temporarily suspended for the sole and specific purpose of 
permitting the Senate Photographic Studio to photograph the United 
States Senate in actual session on Tuesday, March 27, 2012, at the hour 
of 2:15 p.m.
    Sec. 2.  The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and 
directed to make the necessary arrangements therefore, which 
arrangements shall provide for a minimum of disruption to Senate 
proceedings.
                                 <all>
```
Document

        Exhibit 4.1

SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION
DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES


As of May 31, 2021, Scholastic Corporation had one class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended - the Common Stock.


I. DESCRIPTION OF OUR COMMON STOCK


The following is a description of the material terms of our Common Stock as described in the Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation and any amendments thereto and our amended and restated by-laws, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated by-laws. We have filed copies of these documents as exhibits to our periodic reports filed with the SEC each of which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of which this Exhibit is a part.


Our authorized capital stock presently consists of: 4,000,000 shares of Class A Stock par value $.01 per share, 2,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $1.00 per share and 70,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share. As of June 30, 2021, 32,718,240 shares of Common Stock were outstanding, 1,656,200 shares of Class A were outstanding and zero shares of Preferred Stock were outstanding.


Voting Rights


The holders of the Class A Stock and the holders of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share on matters on which they are entitled to vote. The only voting rights vested in the holders of Common Stock, except as required by law, are the election of such number of directors as shall equal at least one-fifth of the members of the Board. The Class A Stock are entitled to elect all other directors and to vote on all other matters.


Dividends


The Class A and Common stock are entitled to receive dividends on an equal basis, as the board of directors may, from time to time, declare from of funds legally available.


Liquidation 


In the event of the liquidation, dissolution or winding up of our Company, the holders of the Class A Stock and the Common Stock are entitled to share ratably in all assets remaining after payment of liabilities


Other Rights


The Class A Stock can be converted to Common Stock at any time at the option of the holder. The Common Stock does not have any conversion rights. Neither of the Class A Stock or the Common Stock has preemptive or other subscription rights. There are no redemption or sinking fund provisions applicable to the Class A Stock or Common Stock. All outstanding shares of Class A and the Common Stock are fully paid and non-assessable.


Subject to the rules and regulations of NASDAQ, the authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock will be available for future issuance without additional stockholder approval.


The rights, preferences and privileges of holders of Common Stock are subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of the holders of the Class A Stock, and any shares of any series of Preferred Stock which we may designate and issue in the future.


NASDAQ Listing


Our common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC under the symbol “SCHL”.