alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wentworth E. MILLER, Appellant, v. ALTADIS U.S.A. INC., Appellee.

No. 2011-1051. Cancellation No. 92050296.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 26, 2011.

Susan M. Schlessinger, Grimes & Batter sby, LLP, Norwalk, CT, for Appellee.

Wentworth E. Miller, Coraopolis, PA, pro se.

Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

ON MOTION

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

The parties jointly move to remand this case to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, due to settlement.

The parties state that they have settled the case and move to remand so that the Board can consider a motion to vacate its judgment and take other actions. We grant the motion to the extent that we remand for the limited purpose of the Board’s consideration of the parties’ motions. *Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc.,*629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2011). We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty days of entry of the Board’s decision on remand. The appeal is held in abeyance pending the resolution of the motions by the Board. The parties should promptly inform this court of the Board’s ruling on the motion and should propose how they believe the appeals should proceed in light of the Board’s ruling.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion to remand is granted to the limited extent explained above. The court retains jurisdiction over the appeal at this time.
Listen

# Event Calendar

View Commission business meeting dates for 2024

----

-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-   ...  
-   Next  
-   Last  

-  Event Calendar 
-  Public Briefings 
-  Commission Business Meetings 
-  Advisory Committees Meetings 
-  Archives 

## Filter Options
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Miller, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from so much of a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), imposed September 15, 1986, as, upon his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, directed restitution in the amount of $7,242.49 to be paid over a 52-month period, as a condition of a five-year term of probation.

Ordered that the sentence is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and new determination concerning the proper amount of restitution and the manner of payment thereof.

While the Nassau County Probation Department could preliminarily ascertain the appropriate amount of restitution and the manner of performance thereof *(see, People v Fuller,*57 NY2d 152, 158-159), it was the duty of the sentencing court to set the amount and manner in which the restitution condition was to be satisfied by the defendant *(see,*Penal Law § 65.10 [2] [g]; § 60.27; *People v Fuller, supra).*Further, since the record and the Probation Department’s restitution summary "were clearly insufficient to enable the court to determine the * * * amount of restitution [and the manner of performance thereof] a hearing was required” with regard to those issues *(People v Clougher,*95 AD2d 860; *see,*Penal Law § 60.27 [2]). The defendant’s purported waiver of a hearing "did not constitute a forfeiture of his right of review by this court, as the failure to accord him a hearing on that issue constituted a departure from 'the "essential nature” of the right to be sentenced as provided by law’ *(People v Fuller, supra,*p 156)” *(People v Clougher, supra).*Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
COMDTINST M5810.1E		

Sample RCM 1112 Review

						5814						2 January 2012

JUDGE ADVOCATE REVIEW UNDER R.C.M. 1112(A) IN THE SPECIALCOURT-MARTIAL CASE OF SN IVAN M. SMITHY [EMPLID], USCG

1.  Pursuant to R.C.M. 1112(a)(2), the attached record of trial in the Special Court-Martial case of U. S. v. SMITHY has been reviewed by the undersigned Judge Advocate.

2.  Based upon my review of the record, I have concluded that:

	a.  The court-martial had jurisdiction over the accused and each offense in which there is a finding of guilty and which has not been disapproved;

	b.  Each specification in which there is a finding of guilty and which has not been disapproved states an offense under the UCMJ; and

	c.  The sentence approved by the convening authority is legal.

3. [If the case is to be sent to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction for action under R.C.M. 1112(e), a recommendation as to the appropriate action to be taken and an opinion as to whether corrective action is required as a matter of law, in accordance with R.C.M. 1112(d)(3), should be included.]

	K. M. DOE	Lieutenant, U. S. Coast Guard	Judge Advocate

Enclosure (18g)	2
Exhibit 31.3



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 302



I, Timothy J.
Steinkopf, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Secure
Computing Corporation;



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 quarterly
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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;



c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



5. The registrants other certifying officers 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|/s/    Timothy J. Steinkopf                      
|-------------------------------------------------
|Timothy J. Steinkopf                             
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|October 31, 2003
#### Margaret J. Sansone, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of James Jordan, Plaintiff, v James A. Lake et al., Defendants. Paul K. Donohue, Appellant, v James A. Lake et al., Defendants, and Town of Hamburg, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action and Another Action.)

(Appeal No. 5.)

Present —Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.30




                                  [LETTERHEAD]




November 18, 1997


BY HAND
Keith Kendrick

This letter serves as an amendment to your employment agreement with First
Virtual Holdings, Incorporated, dated April 16th, 1997 as follows:

1.    APPOINTMENT AS PRESIDENT:

Keith Kendrick is elected to the position of President of the Company reporting
directly to the Chairman and CEO.

2.    OPTION GRANT:

      Keith Kendrick is granted an additional option to purchase 100,000 shares
      of the Company's Common Stock, with a price per share of Common Stock at a
      price equal to the fair market value of the Company's Common Stock as of
      October 10th, 1997 ("Options). The shares subject to this Option will vest
      and become exercisable to the extent of 25% of the shares subject to the
      Option on the first anniversary of the vesting commencement date, and an
      additional 1/48th of the shares subject to the Option at the end of each
      one-month period thereafter provided in each case that you remains an
      employee or consultant of the Company. Further, as a condition to this
      Option grant you will execute an Incentive Stock Option Agreement, in the
      standard form previously approved by the Board.

3.    1998 BONUS:

      The Company agrees to pay you a bonus on January 15th, 1998 of $83,000,
      provided you are still an employee of the Company on January 15th, 1998.

No other provision of your employment agreement is hereby changed.


Sincerely,



/s/  LEE H. STEIN
----------------------------------
Lee H. Stein
Chairman and CEO


Accepted:


/s/  KEITH KENDRICK
----------------------------------
Keith Kendrick
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2252 

AN ACT 

To clarify the effective date of certain provisions of the 

Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014, and for 

other purposes. 

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

•HR 2252 EH

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF CER2 TAIN PROVISIONS OF THE BORDER PATROL 

3 AGENT PAY REFORM ACT OF 2014. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2 of the Border Patrol 

5 Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–277) is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(i) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsections (b), (c), (d), 

8 and (g), and the amendments made by such subsections, 

9 shall take effect on the first day of the first pay period 

10 beginning on or after January 1, 2016, except that— 

11 ‘‘(1) any provision in section 5550(b) of title 5, 

12 United States Code, as added by subsection (b), re13 lating to administering elections and making ad14 vance assignments to a regular tour of duty shall be 

15 applicable before such effective date to the extent de16 termined necessary by the Director of the Office of 

17 Personnel Management; and 

18 ‘‘(2) the Director may issue regulations as nec19 essary prior to such effective date.’’. 

20 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub21 section (a) shall be deemed to have been enacted on the 
3 

•HR 2252 EH

1 date of enactment of the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform 

2 Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–277). 

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2252 

AN ACT 

To clarify the effective date of certain provisions of 

2014, and for other purposes. the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of
<PAGE>
                                                                   Page 10 of 24

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(b)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

JPMorgan Chase Bank                   Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
fka Bank One, National Association    fka Bankers Trust Company
One Bank One Plaza, Suite 0126        60 Wall Street, 26th Floor-MS NYC60-2606
Chicago, IL  60670                    New York, NY 10007
Attn: Corporate Trust Administration  Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency Group
Phone: (312) 407-0192                 Structured Finance
Fax: (312) 407-1708                   Phone: (212) 250-s8522
                                      Fax: (212) 797-8606

Key Bank USA, National Association    MBIA Insurance Corporation
800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor           113 King Street
Cleveland, OH 44114                   Armonk, NY 10504
Attn:  President, KER                 Attn: Data Administration
Phone: (216) 828-4293                 Phone: (914) 765-3772
Fax: (216) 828-9301                   Fax: (914) 765-3660


Pursuant to Section 3.08 of the Subservicing Agreement between Key Bank USA,
National Association as Master Servicer and Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency, as Subservicer, dated as of June 1, 2000 (the "Agreement"),
the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of PHEAA as
Subservicer from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made, and (ii) to the best of the
undersigned's knowledge, based on the review, PHEAA as Subservicer has fulfilled
all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period.

The undersigned also hereby certifies that the Subservicer has disclosed to the
Master Servicer and to the Trust's certified public accountants all significant
deficiencies relating to the Subservicer's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards in accordance with a review conducted in compliance with the Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar standard as set forth
in the Agreement.

                                   PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
                                   ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Subservicer

Date: February 24, 2004            By: /S/ RICHARD E. WILLEY
                                       ------------------------------------
                                   Name: Richard E. Willey
                                   Title: President and CEO
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 246 

AN ACT 

To improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking. 

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

•HR 246 EH

1 SECTION 1. RESPONSE TO VICTIMS OF CHILD SEX TRAF2 FICKING. 

3 Section 404(b)(1)(P)(iii) of the Missing Children’s 

4 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(1)(P)(iii)) is amended 

5 by striking ‘‘child prostitution’’ and inserting ‘‘child sex 

6 trafficking, including child prostitution’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 27, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 246 

AN ACT 

To improve the response to victims of child sex 

trafficking.
UNITED STATES OF AMEzuCA

IJ.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECUzuTY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

LINITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

VS

WILLIAMWILHELM

Respondent

Docket Number 2 023 -0 I 5 4

Enforcement Activity No. 7 640501

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: April 25. 2023

Bv Administrative Law Judqe: Honorable Timothv G, Stueve

Appearances:

LT Bobbi-Jo Robertson

USCG Sector Mobile

For the Coast Guard

William Wilhelm. Pro Se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

on or about March3r,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofconsent order to be approved as a settlement of the case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Seftlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication ofthis proceeding.

Done and dated Api125,2023, at

Alameda, Califomia

Timothy C. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Patrick C. Shutt, certify that: 

1. Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Capital Growth Systems, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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)) forthe small business issuer and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Dated: April 14, 2008
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00393-CV

DONALD FOSTER,

Appellant

v.

RICK THALER,

Appellee

From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24,769

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Donald Foster appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit as frivolous under Chapter 14 

of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. He contends in two issues that the court erred 

because: (1) his pending recusal motion should have first been addressed; and (2) his 

lawsuit is not frivolous. We will affirm.

Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(b) states in pertinent part, “On the day the motion 

[to recuse] is filed, copies shall be served on all other parties or their counsel of record, 

together with a notice that movant expects the motion to be presented to the judge three 
Foster v. Thaler Page 2

days after the filing of such motion unless otherwise ordered by the judge.” TEX. R. CIV.

P. 18a(b). If a party fails to provide this notice, he waives the right to complain of a 

judge’s failure to recuse himself. Carson v. Serrano, 96 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2003, pet. denied). Because Foster failed to provide this notice, he waived 

the right to complain of the judge’s failure to recuse himself. Id. Thus, we overrule his 

first issue.

Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code applies to suits filed by an 

inmate and accompanied by an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay 

costs.1 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.002(a) (Vernon 2002); Hamilton v. 

Williams, 298 S.W.3d 334, 339 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied). The trial court 

may dismiss such a suit if the inmate fails to comply with the requirements of Chapter 

14. See Hamilton, 298 S.W.3d at 339.

Section 14.004 requires the inmate to file an affidavit or unsworn declaration 

listing each suit (other than suits under the Family Code) the inmate previously filed. 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.004 (Vernon 2002). Because Foster did not 

comply with section 14.004, the court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his suit. 

See Hamilton, 298 S.W.3d at 339. Thus, we overrule his second issue.

We affirm the judgment.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

 

1 Chapter 14 does not apply to suits filed under the Family Code. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 

ANN. § 14.002(b) (Vernon 2002).
Foster v. Thaler Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed October 13, 2010

[CV06]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6887

ANTHONY COHEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; LOUIS RUZICKA,

Captain, Correctional Officer V, 7 - 3 shift;

NATHAN ROLLINS, Lieutenant, Correctional

Officer IV, 3 - 11 shift; DELANVIEL EVANS,

Sargeant, Correctional Officer III,7-3

shift; JOHN THOMAS, Correctional Officer II,

3 - 11 shift,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-96-2275-WMN)

Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Cohen, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber,

Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Cohen v. Corcoran, No. CA-96-2275-WMN (D.Md. June 13, 1997).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED