alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 8

- 5 0 8 7 5 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. W I L L I E E

. P H I L L I P S , a l s o k n o w n a s B i g W i l l i e , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 5 : 0 2

- C R

- 3 9 5

- 1

B e f o r e K I N G , B E N A V I D E S , a n d P R A D O , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : * T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t W i l l i e E

. P h i l l i p s h a s

m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. P h i l l i p s h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e , r e q u e s t i n g t h e

a p p o i n t m e n t o f

c o u n s e l

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f ,
a n d P h i l l i p s ’ s r e s p o n s e d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y ,
c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f

o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 8 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 08-50875 Document: 00511315159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2010N o
. 0 8

- 5 0 8 7 5

f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , P h i l l i p s ’ s m o t i o n t o a p p o i n t c o u n s e l i s D E N I E D ,
a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 08-50875 Document: 00511315159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2010
EXHIBIT 10.8

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                       TO
                 Tivoli Systems, Inc. and PSW Technologies, Inc.
                          Software Task Order Agreement
                             Dated November 20, 1995

This  Amendment  No. 2 is made  between  the parties  effective  this 1st day of
December  1997,  to  the  Software  Task  Order   Agreement   (hereinafter   the
"Agreement") dated November 20, 1995 and as amended by Amendment No. 1 to assign
the  Agreement  from Pencom  Software to PSW  Technologies,  Inc. on November 8,
1996. The parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1.    Paragraph 12.1 Term of Agreement.
This paragraph currently reads:

This Agreement shall be effective upon the parties  execution of this Agreement,
and  shall  remain  in force for a period  of two (2)  years,  unless  otherwise
terminated as provided herein; provided,  however, that the Work Statement shall
remain in effect after such termination,  until the Work Statement is terminated
as provided herein or performance thereunder is completed.

This paragraph is replaced by:

This Agreement shall be effective upon the parties' execution of this Agreement,
and shall remain in force  through  December 31, 1998,  provided,  however,  the
Agreement  shall be extended  automatically  for additional one (1) year periods
unless otherwise terminated as provided herein. Additionally, Work Statements in
progress shall remain in effect after such termination, until the Work Statement
is terminated as provided herein or performance thereunder is completed.

2. All other  terms and  conditions  of the  Agreement  remain in full force and
effect.

The parties hare read this  Amendment and agree to its terms by their  execution
below.

Tivoli Systems, Inc.                                 PSW Technologies, Inc.



BY: /s/ Howard  J. Nicholas                          BY:  /s/ Patrick Motola
Title: Manager, Contract Services                    Title:  CFO & VP Operations
Date:  January 22, 1998                              Date:  January 22, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1802 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1802

         To suspend temporarily the duty on instant print film.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 27, 1999

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on instant print film.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
      

``     9902.37.01      Instant print film  2.4%         No change         No change         On or before 12/
                        for color                                                            31/2004          ''
                        photography                                                                            .
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3701.20.0030)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1998
<CASH>                                         951,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,704,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,655,000
<INVENTORY>                                 15,866,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            52,339,000
<PP&E>                                      47,793,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              23,723,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             117,358,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,542,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,985,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,806,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               117,358,000
<SALES>                                     86,227,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            86,396,000
<CGS>                                       55,152,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               55,152,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            54,991,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,069,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (24,816,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (4,880,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (19,936,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                               1,050,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                100,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (18,786,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.02)
        

</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1483

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998

with respect to export controls on high performance computers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 4, 1999

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. DASCHLE, and Mr.

KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1998 with respect to export controls on high performance computers.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL

4 PERFORMANCE LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORM5 ANCE COMPUTERS.

6 Section 1211(d) of the National Defense Authoriza7 tion Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note)
2

S 1483 IS

1 is amended in the second sentence by striking ‘‘180’’ and

2 inserting ‘‘30’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7297

KEITH M. NEALE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-01-747)

Submitted: November 12, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith M. Neale seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a

§ 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As to

claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds,

a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner

can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have

reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the

district court that Neale has not satisfied either standard. See

Neale v. Angelone, No. CA-01-747 (W.D. Va. July 31, 2001).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 181 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 181

     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the 
restriction that a professional psychologist or clinical social worker 
provide services in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility 
    to a patient only under the care of a physician, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the 
restriction that a professional psychologist or clinical social worker 
provide services in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility 
    to a patient only under the care of a physician, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION THAT A PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST OR 
              CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER PROVIDE SERVICES IN A 
              COMPREHENSIVE OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION FACILITY TO A 
              PATIENT ONLY UNDER THE CARE OF A PHYSICIAN.

    (a) In General.--Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended by inserting before the 
semicolon ``(except with respect to services provided by a professional 
psychologist or a clinical social worker)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to services provided on or after January 1, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 99-40180 Summary Calendar

_______________________

NORMA LEE GARZA Plaintiff - Appellant,
V.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Defendant - Appellee.

______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(M-98-CV-6)

______________________________________________________ April 10, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff, a Hispanic female, filed this Title VII action and complains that Defendant-Appellee Texas Department of Health (“TDH”) discriminated against her in hiring an Anglo male. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of TDH. The district court held that, although Plaintiff did establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Defendant offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the hiring of the Anglo male. The district court further held that Plaintiff failed to show either that the hiring process was discriminatoryor that the reasons for the hire were pretextual.

After reviewing the record we agree with the district court that, although Plaintiff made out a prima facie case, the Defendant proffered non-discriminatory reasons for hiring the Anglo male. Plaintiff failed to produce evidence that refuted those reasons. We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant.
(August 2, 1924.)

#### LEO BROTHERS COMPANY, Respondent, v. SPRINGFIELD FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS, Appellant.

[228 Pac. 259.]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, for Latah County. Hon. Edgar C. Steele, Judge.

Action on insurance policy. Judgment for plaintiff,

*Affirmed.*

E. Eugene Davis and Orland & Lee, for Appellant.

Frank L. Moore, for Respondent.

McCARTHY, C. J.

This case and *Leo Brothers Co. v. New Zealand Insurance Co., ante,*p. 548, 228 Pac. 257, were by stipulation submitted together to the court below, and this court, the facts and questions of law being substantially similar. On the authority of the decision in the last-named case, the judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Budge, William A. Lee, JJ., and Johnson, District Judge, concur.

Wm. E. Lee, J., being disqualified, took no part.
Exhibit 21.0

NEOMAGIC CORPORATION  SUBSIDIARIES(All 100% Owned)

|Name                                      |  | Jurisdiction
of Incorporation
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|NeoMagic International                    |  | Cayman Islands               
|NeoMagic Japan K.K.                       |  | Japan                        
|NeoMagic Israel Ltd.                      |  | Israel                       
|NeoMagic U.K. Ltd.                        |  | England                      
|NeoMagic Semiconductor India Private Ltd. |  | India                        
|NeoMagic International (Hong Kong) Ltd.   |  | Hong Kong                    

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001030776
<NAME>                        CPF Holdings,Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                    APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                  1,344
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          12,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                              115
<INVENTORY>                                            15,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       29,959
<PP&E>                                                 34,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                          7,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        133,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  14,452
<BONDS>                                               115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                8,342
<OTHER-SE>                                           (30,779)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          133,079
<SALES>                                               181,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      181,378
<CGS>                                                 152,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         152,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       17,156
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     17,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (5,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               30
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (5,528)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (5,528)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0
                                               

</TABLE>
Exhibit
23.1




CONSENT OF STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON,
INC.


INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
following Registration Statements of NeoMagic
Corporation:




(1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 Nos. 333-76410,
333-105703, 333-131026, 333-119102 and 333-133088) of NeoMagic
Corporation;




(2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-30843,
333-50406, 333-57217, 333-88383, 333-70222, 333-102231, 333-109023, 333-119093,
333-102231, 333-70222, 333-127439, 333-139262 and 333-145338) of NeoMagic
Corporation;




of our report dated May 08, 2009 (which report expresses
an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph raising substantial
doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern), with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of NeoMagic Corporation, for each of
the two years in the period ended January 25, 2009 included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 25,
2009.




/s/ Stonefield Josephson,
Inc.




San Francisco,California


May 08,
2009
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SHERMAN LEE BRYANT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 16

- 3533 and 4D16

- 3579

[ March 15, 2018 ]

Consolidated a ppeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Dan L. Vaughn , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 472015CF000610A and 472015CF000049A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Talla hassee, and Allen R. Geesey, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, T AYLOR and K UNTZ

, J.J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6052

GARY LEE HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections; A. D. ROBERTSON,

Warden of Nottoway Correctional Center; T. C.

ESTEP, Assistant Warden of Programs; LOUIS B.

CEI, Chairman of the Virginia Department of

Corrections, Central Classification Board;

PATRICK GURNEY, Former Manager of the Classification and Records Section of the Department

of Corrections; JOHN DOE, Manager of the Classification Board; GENE JOHNSON, Assistant

Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; JOHN R. ALDERMAN, Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-99-711-AM)

Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 21, 2000

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Gary Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Gary Lee Harris, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

1999) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1999). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Angelone,

No. CA-99-711-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 17, 1999). 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.

DISMISSED