alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elliott *W.*Hudgins and John L. Hudgins, Appellants, *v.*Wyndham Kemp, Assignee in Bankruptcy of John L. Hudgins.

In this case, as in the preceding, no exceptions haying been taken in tile court below to a master’s report respecting rents and profits, the questions cannot be decided by this court.

This was a branch of the preceding case, was argued hy the same counsel, and included within the same principles.

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia.

The bill was filed by the assignee of the bankrupt, J. L. Hudgins, as in the preceding case, against E. *W.*Hudgins, a son, to set aside two deeds of conveyance of lands, as executed and delivered by the bankrupt to hinder and delay creditors— one dated 6th September, 1839, conveying three hundred acres lying in the county of York; the other dated 1st March, 1842, conveying, by estimation, seven hundred acres, in the same county — the latter for the consideration of $3,000. This deed was made a few days after the one set aside in the case of the assignee against Robert Hudgins. The case depends upon substantially the same evidence. Portions of it, tending to connect this defendant with the conduct of the grantor, in conveying away his property .in fraud of his creditors, as respects the deed of, the 1st March, 1842, are, .if possible, somewhat stronger than that in the preceding case..

The court, on the 18th May, 1843, decreed that the deed was fraudulent and void, and that, the assignee in bankruptcy take possession of the property aé*a receiver; and, further, that the deed of the 6th September, 1839, was not made in fraud of creditors, but was valid as ^against the complainant. The court also directed an account of the rents and profits, from the time'of the petition in bankruptcy.to the time of the receiver taking-possession. The master subsequently reported rents and profits to the amount of $659.72; and on the 27th June, 1855, a final decree was entered.

The court decreed that the defendant, Elliott *W.*Hudgins, pay to the complainant $659.72, with interest from 2d June, 1848; and that, if the proceeds of the property directed to be sold in. the case of the plaintiff against Robert Hudgins and others, should not be sufficient to satisfy the debts proved against the bankrupt, then the plaintiff is authorized to sell the lands in question, as particularly specified and directed in the said decrece.

*55The onlyquestion arising on the master’s report in this casé, and the decree, in pursuance thereof, is, that the rents and profits should not have been charged prior to the decree in bankruptcy. The answer to this objection is, that no such exception was taken to the report, and cannot, therefore, be noticed here. The ease, in all its essential parts, falls within the views presented in the preceding one of this plaintiff against Robert Hudgins and others, and must abide the like result.

The decree of the court below is affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10251 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

− Appellee ,

v ersus
RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN , Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 221

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Randy Pittman pleaded guilty of being a f elon in possession of a firearm

* 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 se t forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED September 28, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10251 Document: 00514174580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2017No. 16

- 10251

2 and was sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised
releas e (“SR”) . The term of SR exceeds the statutory maximum term for Pitt

man’s offense, as the parties agree. See 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2), 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2); United States v. Vera , 542 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment is therefore VACATED as to the term of SR , and this matter is REMANDED to modify the sentence consistently with § 3583(b)(2).

To the extent that Pittman reurges the arguments he originally put forth in his response to counsel’s now

- withdrawn motion filed pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he does not have the right to hybrid represen
tation or simultaneous representa tion by himself and counsel. See United States v. Villafranca , 844 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 1393 (2017)

. After the close of briefing, counsel filed a motion to withdraw at the request of Pittman , and Pittman filed a motion to pr oceed pro se . Neither coun
sel nor Pittman has established a “conflict of interest or other most pressing circumstances” warranting removal of counsel. F IFTH C IRCUIT P LAN U NDER

THE CJA , § 5B. The motions are therefore DENIED. Case: 16-10251 Document: 00514174580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2017
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1471

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LEWIS F. CARTER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. M. Hannah Lauck , District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv
- 00161

- MHL )

Submitted : August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lewis F. Carter , Appellant Pro Se. Randolph Lyons Hutter , Francesca Ugolini , Tax Division, U NITED S TATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Lewis F. Carter appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for reconsideration, to alter or amend a prior judgment, and to void judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b), 60(d) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Carter , No. 3:15

- cv
- 00161

- MHL (E.D. Va. Mar. 9, 2018)

. We deny the Government’s
motion for sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 24, 2013

NO. 03-12-00680-CV

Vic A. Gardner, Appellant

v.

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas; The State of Texas; and Glenn Elliott, 

Individually, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING --

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error requiring reversal in the trial 

court’s judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the opinion and 

judgment dated July 18, 2013, are withdrawn, and this opinion and judgment are substituted in 

their places; and that the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. It is FURTHER

ordered that the appellant pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court 

below; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1455

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 8, 1997

Referred to the Committee on Resources

AN ACT

To provide financial assistance for the relocation and expansion of Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Providence, Rhode Island.

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 ‘‘Haffenreffer Museum

5 Restoration Act of 1997’’.
2

S 1455 RFH

1 SEC. 2. RELOCATION AND EXPANSION OF HAFFENREFFER

2 MUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY.

3 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

4 (1) MUSEUM.—The term ‘‘Museum’’ means the

5 Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology at Brown

6 University in Providence, Rhode Island.

7 (2) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means

8 the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife

9 Service.

10 (b) RELOCATION AND EXPANSION OF MUSEUM.—

11 The Director shall make a grant to Brown University in

12 Providence, Rhode Island, to pay the Federal share of the

13 costs associated with the relocation and expansion of the

14 Museum, including the design, construction, renovation,

15 restoration, furnishing, and equipping of the Museum.

16 (c) GRANT REQUIREMENTS.—

17 (1) IN GENERAL.—To receive a grant under

18 subsection (b), the Museum shall submit to the Di19 rector a proposal for the use of the grant.

20 (2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of

21 the costs described in subsection (b) shall be 20 per22 cent.
3

S 1455 RFH

1 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

2 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section

3 $3,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Passed the Senate November 7, 1997.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
1 - JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES, 

No. 3:14-cv-01894-HZ

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT

v.

ALLAN LEHMANN; JAN LEHMANN;

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE;

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;

WASHINGTON COUNTY TAX

COLLECTOR; VELOCITY INVESTMENTS,

INC.; ALLAN LEHMANN AND JAN

LEHMANN JOINT REVOCABLE 

LIVING TRUST;

Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED follows:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of the United States and against Allan Lehmann in the

amount of $579,773.32 as of May 7, 2016 plus interest continuing to accrue

thereupon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c) and 26 U.S.C. §§ 6601, 6621 and 6622;

Case 3:14-cv-01894-HZ Document 49 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 2
2 - JUDGMENT

2. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321, 6322, and 6323, the United States has valid,

subsisting, and enforceable tax liens against all property owned by Allan Lehmann,

whether presently owned or afterwards acquired, in the sum of $579,773.32 as of

May 7, 2016 plus interest continuing to accrue thereupon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1961(c) and 26 U.S.C. §§ 6601, 6621 and 6622;

3. The Allan Lehmann and Jan Lehmann Joint Revocable Living Trust is the nominee of

Allan Lehmann with respect to the property located at 7150 SW Hoodview Place,

Beaverton, OR 97008 (described in paragraph 12 of the Complaint);

4. Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes § 95.200 et seq., the transfers by which the

Allan and Jan Lehmann Joint Revocable Living Trust acquired nominal title to the

property at issue in this lawsuit was fraudulent with respect to the United States;

5. Allan Lehmann is the true and beneficial owner of the property located at 7150 SW

Hoodview Place, Beaverton, OR 97008 (described in paragraph 12 of the Complaint);

6. The United States may avoid the transfer of the property located at 7150 SW

Hoodview Place, Beaverton, OR 97008 (described in paragraph 12 of the Complaint)

to the Allan and Jan Lehmann Joint Revocable Living Trust because the transfer was

fraudulent and because the transferee is a nominee of Allan Lehmann;

7. The federal tax liens in favor of the United States upon the real property described in

paragraph 12 of the Complaint are hereby enforced and foreclosed, and the real

property shall be sold in accordance with an Order of Sale to be submitted by the

United States.

8. Jan Lehmann has no interest in the real property described in paragraph 12 of the

Complaint.

9. Velocity Investments has no interest in the real property described in paragraph 12 of

the Complaint.

DATED this day of , 2016.

__________________________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01894-HZ Document 49 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 2
1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

DARRYL L. FRANKE,

 No. 6:14-cv-01903-AC 

 Plaintiff, 

 OPINION AND ORDER 

v. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration, 

 Defendant. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On November 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and 

Recommendation (F&R) [22], recommending that the decision of the Commissioner should be 

REVERSED and this matter should be REMANDED to the Commissioner for the immediate 

calculation and payment of benefits to Plaintiff Franke. No objections to the Findings and 

Recommendation were filed. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

Case 6:14-cv-01903-AC Document 24 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [22] 

as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ______ day of November, 2015. 

___

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge 

30th

/s/ Michael W. Mosman

Case 6:14-cv-01903-AC Document 24 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 2
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 11, 2012

p0508 

# Order

May 11, 2012

144957-8

IN RE BRUNO, MINORS. SC: 144957-8 COA: 305539; 305540 Macomb CC Family Div: 2008-000786-NA, 2008-000787-NA, 2011-000010-NA, 2011-000011-NA

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
Case: 1:03-cv-07822 Document #: 480 Filed: 02/15/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:5207
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1437

To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 7, 1997

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new item:

‘‘ 9902.32.14 1,3-

Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 6-amino-

(CAS No. 118–33–2)

(provided for in subheading

2921.45.90.90) ........ Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2000 ’’.
2

•S 1437 IS

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 enactment of this Act.

Æ
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 111

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate the immigration

to the United States of certain aliens born in the Philippines or Japan

who were fathered by United States citizens.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate

the immigration to the United States of certain aliens

born in the Philippines or Japan who were fathered

by United States citizens.

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

3 That section 204(f)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nation4 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(f)(2)(A)) is amended—

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(I)’’ after ‘‘born’’; and

6 (2) by inserting after ‘‘subsection,’’ the follow7 ing: ‘‘(II) in the Philippines after 1950 and before
2

•S 111 IS

1 November 24, 1992, or (III) in Japan after 1950

2 and before the date of enactment of this subclause,’’.

Æ
1 - ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CHRISTOPHER B.,

1 No. 3:14-cv-00789-HZ

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Plaintiff brought this action seeking review of the Commissioner’s final decision to deny 

Disability Insurance Benefits. On July 10, 2015, the Court affirmed the Commissioner’s 

decision. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded the 

case for further proceedings. Judgment was entered on July 2, 2020. 

 

1

In the interest of privacy, this order uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of 

the non-governmental party or parties in this case. 

Case 3:14-cv-00789-HZ Document 34 Filed 06/13/20 Page 1 of 2
2 - ORDER

Plaintiff now seeks an award of fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant has no 

objection to the requested fees.

2 The Court has reviewed the record in the case, the motion, and 

the supporting materials including the award of benefits, the fee agreement with counsel, and the 

recitation of counsel’s hours and services. Applying the standards set by Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 

535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002), the Court finds the requested fees reasonable.

The Court grants the motion [31] and awards Plaintiff's counsel $34,222.42 in attorney’s 

fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Previously, the Court awarded Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the 

amount of $16,649.90 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. When 

issuing the section 406(b) check for payment to Plaintiff’s attorney, the Commissioner is 

therefore directed to subtract $16,649.90 and send Plaintiff’s attorney the balance of $17,572.52

less any applicable processing fees as allowed by statute. Any amount withheld after all 

administrative and court attorney’s fees are paid should be released to the claimant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________________________.

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

 

2 Defendant does, however, object to the use of the word “award.” The Court notes that the Ninth 

Circuit uses this terminology. See, e.g., Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir. 2009)

(“The fees awarded ranged from 6.68% to 11.61% of the past-due benefits awarded.”). Other 

courts in this district have also determined that such terminology remains appropriate. See Order, 

Brandon B. v. Saul, Case No. 6:15-cv-1434-SI, ECF 34. The objection is therefore overruled. 

June 13, 2020

Case 3:14-cv-00789-HZ Document 34 Filed 06/13/20 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 154 (Friday, August 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 539-015]


Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an 
Environmental Assessment

    On April 30, 2020, Lock 7 Hydro Partners, LLC filed an application 
for a new major license for the 2.21-megawatt Mother Ann Lee 
Hydroelectric Station Water Power Project (Mother Ann Lee Project) 
(FERC No. 539). The Mother Ann Lee Project is located on the Kentucky 
River in Mercer, Jessamine, and Garrard Counties, Kentucky. The project 
does not occupy federal land.
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on February 26, 
2021, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for 
environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the 
record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not 
anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 
Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on 
the application to license the Mother Ann Lee Project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested 
parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and 
considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
    The application will be processed according to the following 
schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues EA......................  October 2021. \1\
Comments on EA............................  November 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Joshua Dub 
at (202) 502-8138 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7cdc8d4cfd2c689c3d2c5e7c1c2d5c489c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3953564a514c58175d4c5b795f5c4b5a175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations 
under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that EAs be completed within 1 
year of the federal action agency's decision to prepare an EA. This 
notice establishes the Commission's intent to prepare an EA for the 
Mother Ann Lee Project. Therefore, in accordance with CEQ's 
regulations, the EA must be issued within 1 year of the issuance 
date of this notice.

    Dated: August 9, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17382 Filed 8-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT
32.1





PERICOM
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with this annual report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the twelve months ended June 27, 2009 (the
“Report”), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:


(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and


(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates
and for the periods indicated.





September
25, 2009




By:
              /s/ Alex C. HuiAlex
      C. HuiChief
      Executive OfficerPericom
      Semiconductor Corporation