alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4402

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAL OLLIE CLEMONS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(8:09-cr-00788-HFF-1)

Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wesley Locklair, III, LOCKLAIR & LOCKLAIR, PC, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermal Ollie Clemons pled guilty to conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine 

base. The district court sentenced Clemons to 186 months in 

prison. On appeal, Clemons’ counsel has filed an Anders*

Clemons asserts that his attorney was ineffective for 

incorrectly predicting the applicable Guidelines range prior to 

Clemons’ guilty plea. However, ineffective assistance claims 

are more appropriately raised in a motion filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010), unless counsel’s 

ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. See United 

States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). After 

review of the record, we find no conclusive evidence that 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and we accordingly 

decline to consider these claims on direct appeal.

brief, 

stating that there are no viable grounds for appeal, but 

questioning whether trial counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance. Although informed of his right to do so, Clemons 

has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 

remainder of the record in this case and have found no 

meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm Clemons’ 

 * Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
3

conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel 

inform Clemons, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Clemons 

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in 

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Clemons. 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
#### Joseph Esmond and others, Appellants, v. Moses L. Abbott, Respondent.

— Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Follett, J.;

dissenting opinion by Hardin, P. J.
Filed ECF no. Ex. A ref. no.1 Recorded No. Amount Recorded No. Amount Recorded No. Amount

5/17/2019 2073 17 21-18-323 San Joaquin 2/25/2019 2019-019321 $20,717.69 5/9/2019 2019-047290 $1,453.42 9/30/2019 2019-110100 Full $0.00

Additional release information

1 Exhibit A indexes are attached to each previously filed § 546(b) notice. This column corresponds with the reference numbers used in those previous filings. For example, a row 

denoting ECF 2073 and Ex. A. ref. no. 9 would refer to a lien included in the § 546(b) notice filed at ECF 2073, that lien appearing on that notice's Exhibit A index as reference number 9.

Exhibit C - Report of Adjustments to Previously Noticed Liens

Job no(s). County

Noticed lien information Noticed partial release information

Remaining

Notice information

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4072-3 Filed: 10/02/19 Entered: 10/02/19 10:24:59 Page 1

of 1
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1276 CA 12-01180**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF KELIANN ELNISKI, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NIAGARA FALLS COACH LINES, INC., RAEANNE ARGY-TYLER AND MICHAEL J. DOWD, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL C. O’NEILL OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

JAECKLE FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL, LLP, BUFFALO (HOWARD S. ROSENHOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS NIAGARA FALLS COACH LINES, INC. AND RAEANNE ARGY-TYLER.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered April 20, 2012. The order, inter alia, directed that the proposed order and judgment of respondents be signed and entered.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Matter of Elniski v Niagara Falls Coach Lines, Inc. ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Dec. 28, 2012]).

Entered: December 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

     **18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NORTHWEST CHARIOTS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas Dewar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: July 2, 2008

By: */s/ Douglas Dewar*

Douglas Dewar

Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 3904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1310]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than February 9, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Steve Foley, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Marty E. Adams, Salineville, Ohio; Kevin T. Thompson, Saint 
Augustine, Florida; and John S. Loeber, Travelers Rest, South Carolina; 
to acquire voting shares of Palm Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
acquire voting shares of Palm Bank, both of Tampa, Florida.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Verlyn Joseph Herman, Jr., and Aaron Joseph Herman, both of 
Norton, Kansas; as members of a family group acting in concert, to 
retain voting shares of First Norton Corporation, and thereby 
indirectly retain voting shares of First Security Bank & Trust Company, 
both of Norton, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 20, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-1310 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1909. In the Interest of H. F. H. B., a child.

We granted Lamonte Jennings’ application for discretionary review of the

juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to H. F. H. B.

After reviewing the record in its entirety, we find no error in the juvenile

court’s decision. Thus, the application for discretionary review was improvidently

granted. Accordingly, Jennings’ appeal is dismissed. See Collier v. Dept. of Human

Resources, 196 Ga. App. 843, 844 (397 SE2d 632) (1990) (dismissing discretionary

appeal as improvidently granted where full consideration of the record revealed no

error in lower court’s ruling).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

March 07, 2017

03/07/2017
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12

- 2493

___________

IN RE: SHAUN WRIGHT,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07

- cv

- 00918)

____________________________________

_________

ORDER AMENDIN G OPINION

_________

It appears that the final sentence of the opinion filed on August 17, 2012 was not

completed and certain words were omitted. The final sentence of the opinion as filed is:

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny .

The complete senten ce is:

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Accordingly, an amended opinion will be filed. The filing date of the opinion as

originally filed will not be altered as well as the filing date of the judgment.

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Date d : August 30, 2012
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5274 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to allow voluntary agreements 

for Social Security and Medicare coverage of employees of Guam and 

American Samoa. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2014 

Ms. BORDALLO (for herself and Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to allow voluntary agreements for Social Security and Medicare coverage of employees of Guam and American Samoa. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS FOR SOCIAL SECU4 RITY AND MEDICARE COVERAGE OF EMPLOY5 EES OF GUAM AND AMERICAN SAMOA. 

6 Section 218(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 418(b)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘, Guam, or 

8 American Samoa’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|   | 1. | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Exchange Act; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cellcom      Israel Ltd. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/      Amos Shapira        |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Amos      Shapira |   |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |

|   | /s/      Tal Raz             |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Tal      Raz      |   |
|   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 398 Filed: 02/09/19 Entered: 02/09/19 11:43:47 Page 1 of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 398 Filed: 02/09/19 Entered: 02/09/19 11:43:47 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4990 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4990

    To provide for the appointment of additional immigration judges.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2014

 Ms. Jackson Lee (for herself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Hinojosa, 
  Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Vela, and Mr. Johnson of Georgia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the appointment of additional immigration judges.

    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 ``Justice for Children Now Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL IMMIGRATION JUDGES.

    (a) In General.--The Attorney General may appoint 70 additional 
immigration judges in addition to immigration judges currently serving 
as of the date of enactment of this Act.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
Entered on Docket 

February 07, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 366 Filed: 02/07/19 Entered: 02/07/19 14:11:19 Page 1 of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 366 Filed: 02/07/19 Entered: 02/07/19 14:11:19 Page 2 of 2
* 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. 06-20748 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. HUGO ISRAEL MORALES, JR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-57-3
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * HugoIsrael Morales, Jr., appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy and attempting to conceal , harbor, or shield from detection aliens who had entered the United States illegally, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(i). The sole issue raised by Morales on appeal is whether the district court plainly erred in applying a fourlevel increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) based on Morales’s role in the offense. Morales argues that the evidence showed that he “only directed the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 19, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-20748

2 activitiesofundercover lawenforcement agents” and did not recruit or supervise lower level participants. Morales also argues that the presentence investigation report (PSR) improperly recommended theenhancement based on evidence that Morales “exercised management responsibility over the payment of transportation fees.” Morales asserts that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights because in the absence of the erroneously applied enhancement, his guidelines range of imprisonment would have been 18 to 24 months. Although this court normally reviews a district court’sfinding concerning
a defendant’s role in the offense for clear error, because Morales failed to raise any objection to the enhancement in district court, review is for plain error. See United States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818, 828-29 (5th Cir. 1995). “As a general rule, information in the pre-sentence report is presumed reliable and may be adopted by the district court without further inquiry if the defendant fails to demonstrate by competent rebuttal evidence that the information is materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable.” United States v. Carbajal , 290 F.3d 277, 287 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Theevidence presented in the PSR demonstrates that Morales directed at least one other individual who was not a law enforcement agent. The district
court did not impose the enhancement based solely on Morales’s management
over the payment oftransportation fees. Because Morales adduced no evidence to rebut the PSR, the district court was free to adopt the PSR and to rely on the factual findings contained therein. See United Statesv. Ramirez, 367 F.3d 274, 277 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in imposing a four-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(a) based on Morales’s role in the offense. AFFIRMED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

☐ Affects PG&E Corporation 

☐ Affects Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company 

☒ Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in 

the Lead Case, No. 19-30088 (DM).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088-DM

Chapter 11

Jointly Administered

Date: August 28, 2019

Time: 9:30 AM (Pacific Time)

Place: Courtroom 17

 450 Golden Gate Ave.

 16th Floor

 San Francisco, CA

ORDER DROPPING VERWEY MOTION FROM CALENDAR

Based upon the statements of Debtor’s counsel in Statement 

of Debtors Regarding Status of Resolution of Philip Verwey 

Farms’ Motion for Relief from Stay to Exercise Setoff Pursuant 

to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362 and 553 [Dk. 3680], the court has every 

reason to believe that the dispute between Debtors and Mr. 

Verwey will be resolved without further court involvement. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay to 

Signed and Filed: August 26, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

August 26, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3693 Filed: 08/26/19 Entered: 08/26/19 11:29:29 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- 

Exercise Setoff Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362 and 533; Memorandum 

of Points and Authorities [Dkt. 1143]1 is dropped from the August 

28, 2019, calendar. 

Counsel should upload an agreed order resolving this 

contested matter no later than September 6, 2019. If the 

parties are unable to agree, then no later than September 13, 

2019, counsel for each side should email to Ms. Lorena Parada, 

Courtroom Deputy/Calendar Clerk at 

Lorena_Parada@canb.uscourts.gov - without argument – the 

proposed form of order that the submitting counsel believes 

appropriate to conclude this contested matter. The court will 

thereafter review the alternate submissions issue an appropriate 

order. 

**END OF ORDER** 

 

1 Dkt. 1141 filed as Motion for Relief from Stay is the Relief From Stay 

Cover Sheet only.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3693 Filed: 08/26/19 Entered: 08/26/19 11:29:29 Page 2 of

2
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


In connection with the Annual Report of Evolucia Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mel Interiano, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


January 28, 2014
/s/ Mel InterianoMel InterianoChief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 10.3


July 27, 2009


David W.
Froesel, Jr.

100 E. RiverCenter Blvd.

Suite 1600

Covington, KY 41011


          Re:     
Temporary Salary Reduction Program


Dear David:


          As
you know, Omnicare is implementing a temporary salary reduction program. During
the period of Omnicare’s temporary salary reduction program, your regular base
salary will be reduced by five percent (5%) from its current level. This
reduction in your regular base salary will become effective as of July 16,
2009. 


          The
salary reduction does not constitute a breach of, or a failure by Omnicare or
any of its affiliates to observe or perform any of their obligations under,
your employment agreement with Omnicare, dated February 17, 1996 (the
“Employment Agreement”) or any other agreement you may have with Omnicare or
any of its affiliates. The salary reduction will have no effect on the validity
or enforceability of any provision of the Employment Agreement or any other
agreement that you may have with Omnicare or any of its affiliates.
Notwithstanding anything in this letter to the contrary, for purposes of
determining (i) the severance payable pursuant to Section 3.4 or 3.5 of the
Employment Agreement, (ii) the amount of “compensation” under the Rabbi Trust
for Deferred Compensation Arrangements and the Excess Savings Benefit portion
of the Excess Benefit Plan and (iii) your benefits under any other employee
benefit plan of Omnicare or any of its affiliates, your base salary shall be
determined without application of the salary reduction set forth above.


          Nothing
in this letter constitutes an admission by Omnicare or any of its affiliates
that your consent is required to reduce your regular base salary under the
terms of the Employment Agreement or otherwise. If and to the extent necessary,
however, this letter modifies the Employment Agreement to reflect the foregoing
temporary salary reduction. 






          Please
execute and return this letter to show your acknowledgment of and agreement to
the foregoing. We appreciate your efforts on behalf of Omnicare.


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Sincerely,


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
/s/ Mark G. Kobasuk


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Mark G. Kobasuk





Agreed and
accepted:


/s/ David W.
Froesel, Jr.

Employee

Printed Name: David W. Froesel, Jr.

Date: July 27, 2009
kl07026_10-1.htm

 




 

Exhibit 10.1

 

 

 



 

Startech Environmental Corporation

88 Danbury Road, Suite 2A

Wilton, CT 06897





 

July 27, 2009

 

[Name]

[Address]









Dear ________:

 

This will confirm the agreement of Startech Environmental Corporation to indemnify you and to advance payments to you for expenses incurred in your capacity as a [director and/or executive officer] of the Corporation as set forth in the By-laws of the Corporation as amended and in effect on
the date hereof.

 





 





 

              Very
truly yours,

 

             [Name]

             [Title]

















ACKNOWLEDGED:













_________________

[Name]