alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20511

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PAUL MCCANN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-610-12

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Attorney Daucie Elana Shefman, appointed to represent Paul

McCann, Jr., on appeal, has requested leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). McCann has not filed a response to counsel’s motion and

brief. Our independent review of the brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
No. 02-20511

-2-

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

NETsilicon, Inc.
Waltham, Massachusetts

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (including a
Reoffer Prospectus on Form S-3)(No. 333-32368), of our audit report dated
February 18, 2000, relating to the financial statements of Net Silicon, Inc.
appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January
31, 2000.
                                   /S/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
                                           ............



Boston, Massachusetts
April 27, 2000
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5052 

To amend Public Law 110–36 to clarify that a period of employment by 

the Chief of Mission or United States Armed Forces as a security 

advisor, translator, or interpreter in Iraq or Afghanistan is to be counted 

as a period of residence and physical presence in the United States 

for purposes of qualifying for naturalization. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2010 

Mr. DENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 110–36 to clarify that a period of 

employment by the Chief of Mission or United States 

Armed Forces as a security advisor, translator, or interpreter in Iraq or Afghanistan is to be counted as a 

period of residence and physical presence in the United 

States for purposes of qualifying for naturalization. 

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


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5052 IH

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ABSENCE 

2 FROM THE UNITED STATES DUE TO EMPLOY3 MENT AS A TRANSLATOR OR INTERPRETER 

4 IN IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1(e)(1) of Public Law 

6 110–36 (121 Stat. 228) is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A period of absence from 

8 the United States described in paragraph (2)— 

9 ‘‘(A) shall not be considered to break any 

10 period for which continuous residence or phys11 ical presence in the United States is required 

12 for naturalization under title III of the Immi13 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et 

14 seq.); and 

15 ‘‘(B) shall be treated as a period of resi16 dence and physical presence in the United 

17 States for purposes of satisfying the require18 ments for naturalization under such title.’’. 

19 (b) ABSENCE DESCRIBED.—Section 1(e)(2)(A) of 

20 Public Law 110–36 (121 Stat. 228) is amended to read 

21 as follows: 

22 ‘‘(A) such employment involved working 

23 with the Chief of Mission or United States 

24 Armed Forces as translator, interpreter, or in a 

25 security position; and’’. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5052 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect as if included in 

3 the enactment of Public Law 110–36. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
WOIM 7.7. 114 ,7 traTIMMY:41:' _ - 

habeas corpus filed in the district court in the first instance.' NRS 

34.724(2)(c). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

J. 

Saitta 

J. 

cc: Jorge Torres, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

1We express no opinion as to whether petitioner could meet the 

procedural requirements of NRS chapter 34. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 4410,,
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21056]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Senior Executive Service; Departmental Offices; FY 2005 
Performance/Bonus Review Board

AGENCY: Treasury Department.

ACTION: Notice of membership of the Departmental Offices Performance/
Bonus Review Board.

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

DATES: Effective Date: Membership is effective on the date of this 
notice.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice announces the 
appointment of members of the Departmental Offices Performance/Bonus 
Review Board. The purpose of this Board is to review and make 
recommendations concerning proposed Performance ratings, bonuses and 
other appropriate personnel actions for incumbents of SES positions. 
The Board shall consist of at least three members. In the case of an 
appraisal of a career appointee, more than half the members shall 
consist of career appointees. Attached are names and titles of 
additional Board members. The attachment is in addition to the names 
that were listed in the Federal Register that was published on 
September 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 184, page 55957-55958).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Talavera, Supervisory Human 
Resources Specialist, Department of the Treasury, Office of Human 
Resources, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, 
Telephone: 202-622-1044.

Joy Charles,
Director, Office of Human Resources.

                 FY 2005 Performance/Bonus Review Board
                    [For listing in Federal Register]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name                            Official title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carleton, Norman.............  Senior Advisor to the Deputy Assistant
                                Secretary.
Dohner, Robert...............  Senior Advisor to the Deputy Assistant
                                Secretary.
Eddy, Lynn...................  Assoc Chief Information Officer.
Jaskowiak, Mark..............  Dir, Ofc of Specialized Devel.
Kiefer, Donald...............  Dir, Ofc of Tax Analysis.
Nickles, Kim.................  White House Liaison.
Paulson, Sara................  Supvy Director, Ofc of Devel.
Toloui, Ramin................  Dir Ofc Latn Amer & Carib Ntns.
Sanders, Traci...............  Senior Advisor to the Asst Sec Terrorist
                                Financing.
Skud, Timothy................  DAS, Tax Trade and Tariff Policy.
Stedman, Louellen............  Dir, Ofc Intl Mon Aff.
Tvardek, Steven..............  Dir, Ofc of Trade Finance.
Warthin, Thomas..............  Dir, Ofc of Finan Svcs Negotiations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 05-21056 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811-33-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4911 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4911

To repeal specific provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable 
                               Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2010

  Mr. Cooper introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal specific provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable 
                               Care Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Removing Deals for Deficit Reduction 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN PPACA.

    (a) In General.--Effective as of the enactment of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act, the provisions of such Act 
specified in subsection (b) are repealed, and the provisions of law 
amended or repealed by the provisions so specified are restored or 
revived as if such specified provisions had not been enacted.
    (b) Provisions Specified.--The provisions specified in this 
subsection are the following provisions within the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act:
            (1) Section 2006 (relating to special adjustment to FMAP 
        determination for certain States recovering from a major 
        disaster).
            (2) Section 3201(g) (relating to grandfathering 
        supplemental benefits for current enrollees after 
        implementation of competitive bidding).
            (3) Section 10201(e)(1) (relating to DSH allotment 
        adjustment).
            (4) Section 10323 (relating to Medicare coverage for 
        individuals exposed to environmental health hazards).
            (5) Section 10324 (relating to protections for frontier 
        States).
            (6) Section 10502 (relating to infrastructure to expand 
        access to care).
            (7) Section 10905(c) (relating to exemption from annual fee 
        on health insurance for certain nonprofit entities).
            (8) Section 10905(d) (relating to certain insurance 
        exempted from fee).
                                 <all>
```
#### Hugh J. Reilly, Appellant, *v.*Frank Steinhart, Respondent.

*Reilly*v. *Steinhart,*179 App. Div. 893, affirmed.

(Argued May 27, 1918;

decided June 11, 1918.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 29, 1917, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate or modify a prior order and the judgment entered thereon which provided for the recovery by defendant upon his counterclaim of a liquidated sum of money in pursuance of a direction in a remittitur of the Court of Appeals awarding judgment absolute against the plaintiff. (See 220 N. Y. 692.)

The following question was certified: *“*Did the remittitur of the Court of Appeals in this action dated the 27th day of March, 1917, authorize the entry of the order of the Supreme Court dated April 25,1917, directing *558affirmative judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff and the judgment entered thereon on the same day, for the' sum of $15,000 and interest, or any other sum other than costs? ”

*William C. Rosenberg*for appellant.

*David T. Davis*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ACCREDO HEALTH, INCORPORATED FOR THE YEAR
ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,542
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,972
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,300
<INVENTORY>                                     19,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,159
<PP&E>                                           4,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,253
<BONDS>                                         20,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,746
<SALES>                                        244,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               258,354
<CGS>                                          214,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  220,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,739
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,385
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,003
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,382
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1,254)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,128
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRYANT PIERRE BOONE, a/k/a Ice, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-21-1-A, CA-98-1574-AM) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryant Pierre Boone, Appellant Pro Se. William Edward Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order denying Boone’s motion for a certificate of appealability is marked as “filed” on October 19, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on October 21, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Bryant Pierre Boone seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) and denying his various discovery motions, denying his motion for reconsideration, with additional discovery motions, and denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. We havereviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Boone , Nos. CR-96-21-1-A: CA-98-1574-AM (E.D. Va. May 12, June 7, & Oct. 21, 1999). * Boone’s motions to compel the government to produce documents are denied. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 99.7

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

I, Nandan M. Nilekani, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Infosys Technologies Limited on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2002, as amended by this Amendment No. 1, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F, as amended
by this Amendment No. 1, fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Infosys Technologies Limited.

| |  |                                            
| |  | -------------------------------------------
| |  | By: /s/ Nandan M. Nilekani                 
| |  |                                            
| |  | Nandan M. Nilekani, Chief Executive Officer

I, T.V. Mohandas Pai, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Infosys Technologies Limited on Form 20-F for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2002, as amended by this Amendment No. 1, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F, as
amended by this Amendment No. 1, fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Infosys Technologies Limited.

| |  |                                           
| |  | ------------------------------------------
| |  | By: /s/ T.V. Mohandas Pai                 
| |  |                                           
| |  | T.V. Mohandas Pai, Chief Financial Officer

The information in this
Exhibit 99.7 is being furnished and shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that Section. The information in this
Exhibit 99.7 shall not be incorporated by reference into any
registration statement or other document pursuant to the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.

-9-
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.22

                                PROMISSORY NOTE

$140,515                                                 Date September 30, 2000
--------                                                      ------------------

Five Years after date I promise to pay to the order of U.S. Laboratories, Inc.
One Hundred Forty Thousand Five Hundred Fifteen Dollars Payable at U.S.
Laboratories, Inc. 7895 Convoy Ct., San Diego, CA. 92111 for value received with
interest at XXXXXXX per cent per annum.


                                          /s/ Dickerson Wright
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Dickerson Wright, Personally

Witness

/s/ [ILLEGIBLE]
-----------------------------------

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

No.  1   Due September 20, 2005
    ---      ------------  ----
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS SIMPSON, JR.

No. 7429SC930

(Filed 19 February 1975)

Appeal by defendant from *Winner, Judge.*Judgment entered 19 August 1974 in Superior Court, Polk County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 January 1975.

Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the felony of robbery with a dangerous weapon. He was found guilty of attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and judgment of imprisonment was entered.

The State’s evidence tended to show that defendant went into McGinnis’ store, pointed a pistol at Mr. McGinnis, and demanded his wallet. McGinnis did not have a wallet; therefore, defendant pointed the pistol at McGinnis’ head and ordered him to lie down on the floor. After defendant left the store, $21.00 was missing from the cash drawer.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Robert P. Gruber, for the State.*

*Robert W. Wolf, for the defendant.*

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Defendant’s motions for judgment as of nonsuit were properly overruled.

We have carefully considered defendant’s assignments of error to the judge’s instructions to the jury. In our opinion the *695instructions, considered as a whole, fairly presented the case to the jury under applicable principles of law.

No error.

Judges Bkitt and Clark concur.
DENY and Opinion Filed April 15, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00198-CV 

IN RE PAUL A. PROPES, JR., Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 199th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 199-82537-08 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

In this petition for writ of mandamus, Paul A. Propes, Jr., asks this Court to 

compel the trial court to rule on his “bill of review under article 42.01” of the Texas 

Code of Criminal Procedure. We deny relator’s requested relief. 

A petition seeking mandamus relief must contain a certification stating that 

the relator “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in 

the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” 

TEX.R. APP. P. 52.3(j). The Court requires relator’s certification to state substantially 

what is written in rule 52.3(j). See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); see also In re Hughes, 607 S.W.3d 136, 137 (Tex. 
 –2– 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] orig. proceeding) (dismissing case for deficiencies in 

mandamus petition). 

Furthermore, to obtain mandamus relief, relator must file with his petition a 

sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 

S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Specifically, rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) 

requires he file an appendix with his petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy 

of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained 

of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). And rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file 

with the petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the 

relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.7(a)(1). Relator’s status as an incarcerated person does not relieve him of the 

obligation to file a sufficient record. In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). 

As the party seeking mandamus relief, relator has the burden of filing a proper 

petition and providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to 

mandamus relief. See id. Because he has not done so, we deny relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus. 

210198F.P05 

/Craig Smith/ 

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE