alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ezequiel Marmolejos, Also Known as Jose Pena, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered March 28, 1985, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*336Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s guilt of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree was overwhelmingly established by the eyewitness observations of the police officers *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). With respect to the prosecutrix’s summation, which the defendant claims was improper and prejudicial, no objection was made thereto by defense counsel, and consequently any error of law with respect thereto was not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, an examination of the record indicates that in the main, the prosecutrix’s summation properly responded to defense counsel’s summation and, in addition, attempted, within proper bounds, to distinguish between reasonable doubt and unreasonable speculation. To the extent that any part of the prosecutrix’s summation can be considered improper, any error in that regard must be considered harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining objection regarding the imposition of the mandatory surcharge and find it to be without merit *(see, People v West,*124 Misc 2d 622, 624-625; *People v Perrine,*111 AD2d 193). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
# Datos sobre Ciudadanía e Inmigración

Estos informes proporcionan datos sobre varios aspectos de las operaciones de USCIS. Además, algunas tablas indican el oficial de USCIS responsable de la adjudicación. Puede encontrar datos adicionales en:
                - Oficina de Estadísticas de Inmigración de DHS  (en inglés) – Características de los titulares de Tarjeta Verde y estatus de ciudadanía
                - Sala de Lectura Electrónica de USCIS  – Información solicitada frecuentemente y respuestas de FOIA
                - Informes y Estudios  (en inglés) – Resúmenes de múltiples conjuntos de datos
                - Informes sobre el Programa E-Verify  (en inglés) – Informes sobre encuestas, hallazgos y recomendaciones
                - Centro de Datos de Empleadores H-1B  (en inglés) – Datos sobre las prácticas de contrataciones de los empleadores que solicitan trabajadores H-1B.

Para más información sobre nuestros informes, visite la página Cómo Comprender Nuestros Datos. Tenga en cuenta que los conjuntos de datos, informes, y documentos listados anteriormente están en inglés.

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 1, 2019 *

Decided May 2, 2019

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

Nos. 18-3254 & 18-3548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee
,

v

.
TIMOTHY EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 3:14-CR-30173-DRH-3

David R. Herndon, J udge

.

O R D E R
More than a year after pleading guilty an d receiving a sentence in 2017 for drug crimes, Timothy Edwards filed two motions in the district court. The first, under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requested a new trial. The second sought to withdraw his guilty plea un der Rule 11. Edwards had pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine and marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, lying to law enforcement, see 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), and mainta ining a drug-dealing premises,

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1Nos. 18-3254 & 18-3548 Page 2

see 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), and was sentenced to 84 months in prison. The district court denied both motions as legally untenable.
We agree with the district court’s disp osition of both motions. First, Rule 33 applies only to “tried” cases, and Edwards had no trial because he pleaded guilty. F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 33(a); United States v. Graciani , 61 F.3d 70, 78 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Gordon , 4 F.3d 1567, 1572 n.3 (10th Cir. 1993). Thus, he may not receive a “new” trial. Second, under Rule 11, “[a]fter the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty.” F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11(e). Rather, his plea “may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack.” United States v. Vinyard , 539 F.3d 589, 594 (7th Cir. 2008). Edwards attempted a direct a ppeal, but we dismissed it because it was untimely. See Order of Dismissal, United States v. Edwards , No. 17-2436 (7th Cir. July 16, 2018), ECF no. 33. And he has not brought a collateral attack; he has invoked only Rule 11 and done so more than a year after se ntencing. Rule 35 blocks relief under that circumstance. F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 35(a) (court may not alter sentencing judgment more than 14 days after its entry).

AFFIRMED
Ready Reacting Injured Ill

Adaptive coping

Optimal functioning

Wellness

Features

Well trained and prepared

Fit and focused

In control

Optimally effective

Behaving ethically

Mild and transient distress or 

loss of optimal functioning

Temporary & reversible

Low risk for illness

Features

Irritable, angry

Anxious or depressed

Physically too pumped up or 

tired

Reduced self-control

Poor focus

Poor sleep

Persistent and disabling distress 

or loss of function

Unhealed stress injuries

Mental disorder

Types

PTSD

Major Depression

Anxiety

Substance abuse

Features

Symptoms and disability persist 

over many weeks

Symptoms and disability get 

worse over time

THE STRESS SCALE

Train hard

Build the team

Talk to someone 

you trust

Talk to chaplain, 

counselor, or 

medical

Seek medical 

attention

More severe and persistent 

distress or loss

Higher risk for illness

Causes

Wear and Tear, Inner Conflict, 

Loss, Trauma

Features

Panic or rage

Loss of control of body/ mind 

Can’t sleep

Recurrent nightmares/ bad 

memories

Persistent shame, guilt 

or blame

Loss of moral values 

and beliefs
Opinion filed May 21, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

No. 11-09-00133-CV

__________

 KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, Appellant

V.

 KAREN Y. COREY-STEELE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-105,220

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On April 30, 2009, the clerk of this court wrote the parties stating that it appeared this court

did not have jurisdiction over this appeal and directing Keith Russell Judd to respond showing

grounds for continuing the appeal. Judd has responded contending that he filed in the trial court on

April 14, 2009, a motion asking the trial court to vacate its 1998 family violence order, that his

motion will be deemed denied after thirty days, and that this appeal will be effective on May 14,

2009. 
2

Judd has failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. The appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

May 21, 2009

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
Exhibit 32.1

             Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officer of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated certifies
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

..      the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
       December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
       or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

..      the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company.

Date:   March 27, 2006
                                   /s/ John W. Peters
                                   ____________________________________
                                   John W. Peters
                                   Principal Executive Officer
                                   Principal Financial Officer
#### Jack Schifano, Appellant, v Andrew P. Meloni, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Same memorandum as in *Fagan v Meloni*([appeal No. 1] 125 AD2d 980 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, White, J. — libel.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.
exv10w14






EXHIBIT 10.14




HealthStream, Inc. (the “Company”)




Summary of Director and Executive Officer Compensation


I. Director Compensation. Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive additional
compensation for serving as directors of the Company. The following table sets forth current rates
of cash compensation for the Company’s non-employee directors.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Retainers and Fees	 	2010	 
	Annual Retainer fee
	 	$	2,000	 
	Board meeting fee
	 	$	1,000	 
	Committee chair meeting fee
	 	$	1,000	 
	Committee member meeting fee
	 	$	500	 






     In addition to the cash compensation set forth above, each non-employee director receives a
nondiscretionary annual grant of a non-qualified option for the purchase of 10,000 shares of the
Company’s common stock. The option is granted in connection with our Annual Meeting of
Shareholders, vests over a two year period, and has an exercise price equal to the fair market
value of the stock on the grant date.


II. Executive Officer Compensation. The following table sets forth the current base salaries and
the fiscal 2009 performance bonuses provided to our executive officers, including the individuals
who the Company expects to be its Named Executive Officers for 2010.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive Officer	 	Current Salary	 	 	Fiscal 2009 Bonus Amount	 
	Robert A. Frist, Jr.
	 	$	210,000	 	 	$	73,500	 
	Arthur E. Newman
	 	$	210,000	 	 	$	73,500	 
	J. Edward Pearson
	 	$	215,000	 	 	$	75,250	 
	Kevin P. O’Hara
	 	$	200,000	 	 	$	70,000	 
	Gerard M. Hayden, Jr.
	 	$	205,000	 	 	$	71,750	 
	Jeffrey S. Doster
	 	$	205,000	 	 	$	71,750	 
	Michael Sousa
	 	$	185,000	 	 	$	-0-	 





III. Additional Information. The foregoing information is summary in nature. Additional information
regarding Director and Named Executive Officer compensation will be contained in our proxy
statement for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders that we will file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year to which this report relates.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: Angel Lee Rankin v. The State of Texas Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00156

- CR
Trial court case number: 1325037
Trial court: 209th District Court of Harris County
The State’s brief in this case was due on October 28, 2019. On November 19, 2019, this Court notified the State that the time to file its brief had expired. The Court provided the State 10 days to file either (1) a motion requesting an extension of time along with its brief or (2) a motion to extend time to file a brief. The State did not respond. Four months later, o n March 27, 2020, the State filed its brief along with a n extension motion , citing no unusual circumstances

. Our Court granted the ex tension request on March 30, 2020. A round the same time, appellant filed a motion to strike the State’s brief as untimely. At this Court’ s request, the State filed a respon se to the motion to strike. I n the State’s response, counsel acknowledges “ getting overly complacent and comfortable with appellate courts’ granting . . . late extensions contemporaneously filed with the State’s briefs .” Although c ounsel in this case has vowed to stop this practice , we expect that all counsel repres enting the State will assist in the timely resolution of cases by complying with their obligation to timely file extension request s
. The motion to strike is denied

. It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature:

___________________________ ______ ______ Acting individually

Date: ___

___________________

/s/ Sarah B. Landau

April 28, 2020
#### Cannon v. The State.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Pike.

Tried before the Hon. J. W. Foster.

No counsel marked as appearing for appellant.

Charles G. Brown, Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.

The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for murder and sentenced- to the penitentiary for life. The judgment of conviction is affirmed, no bill of exceptions appearing and there being no questions reserved for the consideration of this court.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40115

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO PEREZ-GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CR-1193-1

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Alfredo Perez-Gutierrez appeals the within-guidelines sentence imposed

following his conviction for being an alien found unlawfully in the United States

after a prior deportation. He contends that the district court improperly applied

a presumption of reasonableness to his advisory guidelines range and failed to

adequately explain its reasons for the sentence. Because he did not alert the

district court to these arguments, they are reviewed under the plain error

standard. See United States v. King, 541 F.3d 1143, 1144 (5th Cir. 2008); United

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 18, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-40115 Document: 00511298686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2010
No. 10-40115

States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2007). PerezGutierrez wishes to preserve for further review the issue whether a specific

objection to the adequacy of the district court’s explanation of the sentence is

required in order to avoid plain error review of that issue on appeal.

Perez-Gutierrez’s arguments are unavailing regardless of whether the

plain error standard is applicable. The record does not reflect that the district

court erred by applying a presumption in favor of a sentence within the

guidelines range. See King, 541 F.3d at 1145. Additionally, the district court

provided an adequate explanation of its reasons for the sentence, as its

statements at sentencing indicate it concluded that a sentence within the

guidelines range was appropriate after considering Perez-Gutierrez’s arguments

and the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Rita v. United States,

551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525-26

(5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-40115 Document: 00511298686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7182

DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. E. GAINES, Police Officer at Greensboro

Police Department; SYLVESTER DAUGHTRY, Chief

of Police, Greensboro Police Department,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

GREENSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-94-225)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Marquis Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Reeves Davis,

Jr., NICHOLS, CAFFREY, HILL, EVANS & MURRELLE, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellees.
2
3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals 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 accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Fleming v. Gaines, No. CA94-225 (M.D.N.C. May 16, 1996). 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
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Si Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of
AMERICAN LORAIN CORPORATION (the Company), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that:

| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
      the Company.                                                       

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 2nd day of May 2011.

/s/ Si Chen Si Chen Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to American Lorain Corporation and will be retained by
American Lorain Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to §18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5849 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2010 

Received 

AN ACT 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small 

Business Investment Act of 1958, 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, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5849 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AU2 THORIZATION OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE 

3 SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSI4 NESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An 

6 Act to extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small 

7 Business Administration’’, approved October 10, 2006 

8 (Public Law 109–316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most recently 

9 amended by section 1 of Public Law 111–162 (124 Stat. 

10 1129), is amended by striking ‘‘July 31, 2010’’ each place 

11 it appears and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2010’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 subsection (a) shall take effect on July 30, 2010. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 27, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### In re John F. TOMMINS, Private, Lawrence J. Castro, Specialist Five, William T. Below, Specialist Four, Lee D. Seymour, Specialist Four, Joseph P. Smith, Specialist Five, John P. McConnon, Specialist Four, Robert A. Coleman, Private, Richard L. Compton, Private, James A. Mack, Specialist Four, McKendrick L. Mapp, Private, Cecil Baldwin, Private First Class, Michael D. Ohler, Private First Class, and Randy S. Peterson, Private, U. S. Army, Petitioners.

Miscellaneous Docket No. 75-17.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

May 19, 1975.

*Captain Brett L. Grayson,*counsel for Petitioners.

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

The above-named individuals have submitted for this Court’s consideration, a document entitled “Petition of Intervention.” this means each seeks to intervene in the case of *Bouler v. Wood,*1 M.J. 191 (C.M.A., 1975), evidently as parties petitioner.

*34The petitioners represent that they are held in pretrial confinement, and they request the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the military judge named as respondent in *Bouler v. Wood, supra,*to rule on motions for pretrial release “of all accused placed in pretrial confinement who appear before him with said motions,” or, in the alternative, to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the release of said petitioners.

Prescinding from the fact that class actions are not encompassed within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), nor otherwise authorized within the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction,1 to the extent that these petitioners assert individual claims for relief, their petition is ineffective for more fundamental reasons:

1. The charges under which each petitioner is confined pending trial are not set out. We cannot determine, therefore, whether or not their individual cases may eventually be the subject of a petition to this Court pursuant to Article 67(b)(3), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b)(3).2

2. There is no indication whether any of the charges have been referred to a court-martial authorized to impose a sentence within this Court’s jurisdictional limits.3

3. There is no indication that the charges against petitioners have been referred to a court-martial to which the military judge named as respondent in *Bouler v. Wood, supra,*has been detailed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

1

. *In re Watson,*19 U.S.C.M.A. 401, 42 C.M.R. 3 (1970).

2

. *United States v. Snyder,*18 U.S.C.M.A. 480, 40 C.M.R. 192 (1969).

3

. *United States v. Snyder, supra.*
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATIONS



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of SPACEHAB, Incorporated (SPACEHAB), that,
to the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SPACEHAB on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of SPACEHAB.



Date: February 10, 2006



/s/ Michael E. KearneyMichael E. KearneyPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Brian K. HarringtonBrian K. HarringtonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPACEHAB and will be retained by SPACEHAB and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.