alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 98-48

MACK A. MCCORMICK, APPELLANT,

V.

TOGO D. WEST, JR.

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, IVERS, and STEINBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

The appellant appeals through counsel a December 16, 1997, Board of Veterans' Appeals

decision that denied Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)service connection for loss of vision due

to pink eye. Record at 2. In his September 17, 1999, brief, the appellant cites to and quotes from

various provisions of the VA Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1 [hereinafter Manual M21-1].

Brief at 7-8. In his December 13, 1999, response to the appellant's brief, the Secretary states that

"the sole issue concerning the [Manual M21-1] raised below [was] whether the Secretary had a duty

to assist [the] appellant by virtue of the [Manual] M21-1 provisions in Part III, paras. [sic] 1.03b,

1.04a[,] and 2.10f". Response at 5. Neither of the parties have appended to their pleadings those

Manual M21-1 provisions that they consider pertinent to this appeal. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, not later than 5 days after the date of this order, the parties each file with

the Court, and serve on each other, copies of the portions of the Manual M21-1 that they identify in

their respective pleadings.

DATED: June 28, 2000 PER CURIAM.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security

07/13/2016 www.uscis.gov

Applying for TPS? Avoid Immigration Scams

The Wrong Help Can Hurt!

Find official information on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) online at uscis.gov/tps. You can

also find country-specific TPS information on this site. 

USCIS Forms and Fees

All USCIS forms are available for free:

• At uscis.gov/forms, 

• By calling the USCIS Forms hotline at 800-870-3676, or 

• At your local USCIS office. 

The fee to submit Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, is $50. A biometrics 

fee of $85 is also required for applicants 14 years old and older. 

Each applicant, regardless of age, must also submit a completed Form I-765, Application for 

Employment Authorization, even if employment authorization is not requested. Applicants 

between 14 and 65 must pay the filing fee of $380 if they are requesting an employment 

authorization document (EAD). 

If you cannot afford the fees, a fee waiver may be available, visit uscis.gov/feewaiver.

Representation

You do not need to have an attorney or a representative to apply for TPS. If you choose to have a 

representative, make sure they are a licensed attorney or a Department of Justice accredited 

member of a recognized organization. Please visit the Find Legal Services page on our website 

for more important information on this topic.

Helpful Tips

For more information on protecting yourself against immigration scams, visit our Avoid Scams

web page, at uscis.gov/avoidscams.

This site contains information on:

• Common scams

• Form filing tips

• Finding legal services – attorneys in good standing and accredited representatives

• Reporting immigration scams
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of forthcoming meetings of the Federal Advisory Committee for the End-to-End Review of the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System (NCCS). The purpose of these meetings is to conduct a comprehensive and independent review of the NCCS positive measures to assure authorized use of nuclear weapons when directed by the President while assuring against unauthorized or inadvertent use. This meeting will be closed to the public. 

# DATES:

May 22-23, 2001. 

# ADDRESSES:

Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Room 208, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. William L. Jones, U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Support Staff (NSS), Skyline 3, 5201 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Falls Church, Virginia 22041, (703) 681-8681. 

Janet A. Long, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 01-10543 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5000-01-U
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Harrison, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered on June 5, 1985, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and *325agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Carro, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                               12051
<SECURITIES>                                         39687
<RECEIVABLES>                                         2082
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     53820
<PP&E>                                              112234
<DEPRECIATION>                                        3661
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      165701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  235
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             59974
<OTHER-SE>                                          105492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        165701
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     32352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (32352)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (29807)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (29807)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.004)
        


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BENJAMIN FREEMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ARIZONA, Real party in interest; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

RUVACOBA, First Name Unknown; et al.,

Defendants. No. 18

- 17352

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 01015

- JAT

- MHB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020 * *

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Benjamin Freeman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 17352

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 action alleging various constitutional violations.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion a district court’s denial of leave to amend. Curry v. Yelp Inc. , 875 F.3d

1219, 1224 (9th Cir. 2017). We vacate and remand

.

T he district court properly dismissed Freeman’s operative complaint because

Freeman failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim

. See Hebbe v.

Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are

liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim)

.

However, t he district court dismiss ed the operative complaint without

previously provid ing Freeman with notice of his claims’ deficiencies. See Akhtar

v. Mesa , 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A district court should not dismiss

a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”); Lopez v. Smith

,

203 F.3d 1122, 1130

- 31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (remanding because the district

court failed to grant prisoner leave to amend his complaint to name the correct

defendants). We vacate the judgment and re mand for the district court to provide

Freeman with an opportunity to amend his complaint.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).3 18

- 17352

Freeman’s motion to dismiss defendant State of Arizona (Docket Entry No.

27) is granted

. Freeman’s other pending motions are denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C
Section 1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Logility, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, this
report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2008 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of American Software, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.



|                              |  |  |  |                                             
|----------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|This 16thday ofDecember, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ J. Michael Edenfield                    
|                              |  |  |  | J. Michael Edenfield Chief Executive Officer

The undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of Logility, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge
and belief, this report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2008 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of American Software, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.



|                              |  |                                           
|----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|This 16thday ofDecember, 2008 |  | /s/ Vincent C. Klinges                    
|                              |  | Vincent C. Klinges Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to American Software, Inc. and will be retained by American
Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The information in this Exhibit 32.1 shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific
reference in such filing.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 12-19

IN RE: RULES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

O R D E R

It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 40(b) and (c)(1) of the Court's Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (Rules), that the following individual is appointed by the Board of Judges to serve as a 

member of the Court's Rules Advisory Committee for a term as indicated:

Angela K. Drake, Esq., Director and Supervising Attorney of the University of Missouri 

School of Law Veterans Clinic, for a two-year term ending August 27, 2021, vice Paul M. 

Schoenhard, Esq., whose term expired.

Further, it is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 40(b) and (c)(1) of the Court's Rules, that the 

following members of the Court's Bar are reappointed to the Court's Rules Advisory Committee 

for a term as indicated:

 

 Bradley W. Hennings, Esq., of Providence, Rhode Island, for a term ending July 30, 2021;

 Doris Johnson Hines, Esq., of Washington, District of Columbia, for a term ending July 30, 

2021.

 

 

DATED: August 29, 2019 FOR THE COURT:

 /s/Gregory O. Block

 GREGORY O. BLOCK

 Clerk of the Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando CONTRERAS-VILLEGAS, also known as Armando Contreras Villegas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-51127

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 13, 2011.

*363Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Armando Contreras-Villegas appeals the sentences imposed following his guilty plea convictions for attempted illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and false personation in immigration matters, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546. Contreras-Villegas contends that his within-guidelines sentences are substantively unreasonable because they were greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In that regard, Contreras-Villegas asserts: the unlawful-reentry Guideline is not empirically based and effectively double counts a prior conviction; he is prejudiced by a disparity between sentencing districts that employ “fast track programs” and the one in which he was sentenced that does not have that program; and his sentences fail to take into account that his crime amounted to an attempted international trespass and that he suffered physical abuse as a child.

We review the substantive reasonableness of Contreras-Villegas’s sentence for an abuse of discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). As Contreras-Villegas concedes, his arguments regarding the lack of empirical data for the illegal reentry Guideline and a fast track program are foreclosed by our precedent. *See United States v. Duarte,*569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 378, 175 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009) (rejecting defendant’s contention that because his illegal reentry offense effectively double counted his previous crime and was unsupported by empirical data, the presumption of reasonableness did not apply); *United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 563 (5th Cir.2008) (rejecting challenge to a *364sentence based upon the lack of a fast track program).

Contreras-Villegas’s disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors does not suffice to show error. *See Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d at 565-66. The district court considered and rejected his arguments for a sentence below the recommended guidelines range. He has not shown that his sentences are unreasonable, and he has not shown that the presumption of reasonableness should not be applied to his within-guidelines sentences. *See United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EX-10.12






 Confidential Treatment Requested by Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. 

Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. Section 200.83 
  

 Exhibit 10.12 
  





 
 July 8, 2019 
 Craig
Cappel 
 President, Reynolds Foil & Cooking 
 Dear
Craig: 
 As we have discussed, a critical component of our ongoing business strategy for Reynolds Consumer Products will be to explore opportunities for the
business that could lead to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the business or potentially a divestiture of the associated business entities. Your assistance is needed by Reynolds as we work through this process to help prepare the business for a
successful transaction. In light of this, we are offering you a special Transaction Success bonus (“Bonus”) that will become payable if a successful IPO is concluded or if there is a sale of the business by June 30, 2020. 

If an IPO transaction is completed, your potential bonus will be $463,500. Fifty percent (50%) of this bonus ($231,750) will be paid to you 30 days after the
effective date of an IPO, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. You will be paid the remaining fifty percent (50%) of this bonus six (6) months after the effective date of an IPO,
so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. This bonus is a gross amount and is subject to all applicable tax withholding requirements. This bonus will not be treated as compensation for any
purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless statutorily required. 
 If a sales transaction is completed, your potential bonus will be $695,250.
Fifty percent (50%) of this bonus ($347,625) will be paid to you 30 days after the effective closing date of a sale, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. You will be paid the remaining
fifty percent (50%) of this bonus six (6) months after the closing date, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. This bonus is a gross amount and is subject to all applicable tax
withholding requirements. This bonus will not be treated as compensation for any purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless statutorily required. 

Because of the significance of this strategic effort, and given that you are one of a select group of employees to be offered this opportunity, it is of
utmost importance that you keep this offer and all its terms entirely confidential. 
 Thank you for your willingness to assist the team during this
endeavor and for your help in ensuring the success of this very important process for Reynolds Consumer Products. 
 Sincerely, 

 

	
	 //s// Lance Mitchell

	 Lance Mitchell

	 Chief Executive Officer

	 Reynolds Consumer Products
**Exhibit      10.44**

**Shenzhen      Branch, Bank of China **

**Loan      Certificate (1)**

| Applicant                             |   | Shenzhen                BAK Battery Co., Ltd           |   | ID                card of the Applicant   |   | 73109958-5                            |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |   |                                                   |   |                                      |   |                                  |
| Currency                              |   | RMB                                                    |   | Amount                                    |   | 30,000,000                            |
|                                  |   |                                                   |   |                                      |   |                                  |
| Loan                term              |   | From                August 14, 2007 to August 13, 2007 |
|                                  |   |                                                   |
| Usage                                 |   | Working                Capital                         |
|                                  |   |                                                   |
| Annual                rate            |   | 6.156%                                                 |
|                                  |   |                                                   |   |                                      |   |                                  |
| Signature                of Applicant |   | Stamp                of Applicant                      |   | Signature                of Bank of China |   | Stamp                of Bank of China |
|                                  |   |                                                   |   |                                      |   |                                  |
|                                  |   |                                                   |   |                                      |   |                                  |
| /s/                Xiangqian Li       |   |                                                   |   |                                      |   |                                  |

----
EXHIBIT 24.4
POWER OF ATTORNEY
     The undersigned, a director of Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc., herebyconstitutes and appoints Stephen J. Tomassi and Gregory D. Waller, or either ofthem, his true and lawful attorneys and agents, each with full power andauthority to act as such without the other, to do any and all acts and thingsand to execute any and all instruments which either one of said attorneys andagents may deem necessary or advisable to enable said Corporation to complywith the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), as amended; and includingspecifically, but without limitation of the foregoing, full power and authorityto each of said attorneys and agents to sign the name of the undersigned to theForm 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003, and anyamendment(s) thereto, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to the requirements of the Act, the undersigned hereby ratifying andconfirming all that said attorneys and agents, or either of them, shall do orcause to be done by virtue hereof.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed and delivered thesepresents as of the 15th day of December 2003.     /s/ FLOYD W. PICKRELL, JR.Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr.