alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 99-40783

-1-

 

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40783

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES HERMAN STEVENSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CR-86-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 11, 2000

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James Herman Stevenson, Jr., appeals from his conviction for

conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine base,

possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base, and

carrying a firearm in relation to drug trafficking. He argues

that the warrantless search of the automobile was not supported

by probable cause because the police officers did not have

reasonable suspicion to employ a drug-detecting canine. 

Stevenson did not file a motion to suppress in the district

court; instead he objected to the admission of the evidence
No. 99-40783

-2-

seized following the search of the automobile. Because, however,

he did not make the specific argument in the district court

concerning the propriety of the use of the canine, review of the

issue is for plain error. See United States v. Spires, 79 F.3d

464, 465 (5th Cir. 1996); see United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d

947, 950-51 (5th Cir. 1994)(alleged constitutional error in

criminal conviction reviewed for plain error). To demonstrate

plain error, Stevenson must show clear or obvious error that

affects his substantial rights; if he does, this court has

discretion to correct a forfeited error that seriously affects

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings but is not required to do so. See United States v.

Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). 

A dog’s "sniff" of a vehicle is not a search, United States

v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1106 (5th Cir. 1993), and does not

implicate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Mendez, 27 F.3d

126, 129 n.4 (5th Cir. 1994). A dog alert alone can provide the

probable cause necessary to support a warrantless search of a

vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant

requirement. See United States v. Williams, 69 F.3d 27, 28 (5th

Cir. 1995), citing Seals, 987 F.2d at 1107. Stevenson cannot

show that it was plain error for the district court to admit the

evidence the officers seized from the automobile. 

Stevenson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

WILLIAM R. KIEFER 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM INACTIVE STATUS 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 58 DB 2015 (No. 49 RST 2015) 

Attorney Registration No. 22092 

(Out of State) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 4th day of August, 2015, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated July 27, 2015, is approved and it is ORDERED that 

William R. Kiefer, who has been on Inactive Status, has never been suspended or 

disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E2.15: Apply OASDI 12.4 percent payroll tax rate on earnings above $300,000 starting in 2025, and tax all earnings once the current-law taxable maximum exceeds $300,000. Provide benefit credit for earnings above the current-law taxable maximum that are subject to the payroll tax, using a secondary PIA formula. This secondary PIA formula involves: (1) an "AIME+" derived from annual earnings from each year after 2024 that were in excess of that year's current-law taxable maximum; and (2) a formula factor of 3 percent on this newly computed "AIME+".**

|  |  |
|--|--|
Notice: This opin ion is subject to form al revision before publication in the Atl antic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal

errors so that correc tions m ay be made before the boun d volum es go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF AP P EALS

No. 1 4- BG- 48 1

IN RE: STANLEY E. GREENIDGE, Res po nd en t. Ba r Reg is tra tio n No. 1 13 99 3

BEFORE: Bec kwi th , Ass oc ia te Ju dg e, an d Neb ek er an d Ter ry , Sen io r Ju dg es

.
ORDER (FILED - Aug us t 2 1, 2 01 4)

On con si de rat io n of th e cert ifi ed or de r su sp en di ng res po nd en t for a pe rio d of

on e y ear, al l bu t th ree m on th s st ay ed , fo ll owe d by a ni ne -m on th pr ob at io n in th e st at e of M a s s a c h us et ts , th is co ur t’s May 20 , 20 14 , or de r di rect in g res po nd en t to sh ow
cau se why reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne sh ou ld no t be im po se d, th e st at em en t of Bar Co un se l,

an d it ap pe ari ng th at res po nd en t ha s fai le d to fil e ei th er a res po ns e to th i s c o u rt’s

or de r to sh ow ca us e o r th e aff id av it req ui red by D .C. Bar R . XI, §1 4 (g ), it is

ORDERED th at St an le y E. Green id ge is he reb y su sp en de d fo r a pe rio d of on e y ear, al l bu t th ree m on th s st ay ed , f o l l owe d by a ni ne -m on th pr ob at io na ry pe rio d

s u b je c t t o t h e te rm s im

po se d by th e st at e of Mas sa ch us et ts

. Se e In re Si bl ey , 99 0 A.2d 48 3 (D.C . 20 10 ), an d In re Ful le r , 93 0 A.2 d 1 94 , 19 8 (D.C . 20 07 ) (reb ut ta bl e pr es um pt io n of id en ti cal reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne ap pl ie s to al l cas es i n w hi ch th e
res po nd en t d oe s n ot pa rti ci pa te ). It i s

FURTHER ORDERED th at fo r pu rp os es of rei ns ta te m en t th e pe rio d of

res po nd en t’s su sp en si on wil l no t be gi n to ru n un ti l su ch ti m e as he fil es an affi da vi t th at ful ly com

pl ie s wi th th e req ui rem en ts of D.C. Ba r. R. XI, §1 4 (g ).

PER CURIAM
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20266

USDC No. CA-H-94-1310

__________________

LEONARD R. CROOMS,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

 Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

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

August 14, 1995

Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Leonard Ray Crooms requests a certificate of probable cause

(CPC) to appeal the district court's dismissal of his fourth

federal petition for habeas corpus as an abuse of the writ. A

second or successive petition may be dismissed if the petitioner

alleges new or different grounds and "the failure of the

petitioner to assert those grounds in a prior petition

constituted an abuse of the writ." Rule 9(b) of the Rules

Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proceedings. We review the district

court's decision to dismiss the petition pursuant to Rule 9(b)
No. 95-20266

-2-

for an abuse of discretion. Hudson v. Whitley, 979 F.2d 1058,

1062 (5th Cir. 1992).

 The district court should have given Crooms notice that his

petition was being considered for dismissal and that dismissal

was automatic if he failed to show why he did not raise the new

claims in his previous petitions. See United States v. Cullum,

47 F.3d 763, 764 (5th Cir. 1995)(§ 2255 case). Because it is not

certain that Crooms would not be able to allege facts sufficient

to prevent his claim from being dismissed under Rule 9(b), the

court's error was not harmless. Id.

 Crooms's request for CPC is GRANTED. Because no further

briefing is necessary, the district court's judgment dismissing

Crooms's petition is VACATED and the cause REMANDED for further

proceedings. See Clark v. Williams, 693 F.2d 381, 381-82 (5th

Cir. 1982). Crooms's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

is DENIED as unnecessary.
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 Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Minority Health.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

      ( print page 6281)    

# SUMMARY:

The meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health (ACMH) scheduled for January 28 and 29, 2016, is cancelled due to inclement weather. This meeting will be rescheduled at a future date.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dr. Minh Wendt, Designated Federal Officer, ACMH; Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Phone: 240-453-8222. Fax: 240-453-8223. Email:                         *OMH-ACMH@hhs.gov.*

### Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 5, 2016, Vol. 81, No. 2, on pages 242-243 a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health was announced. That meeting has been cancelled due to inclement weather.                    

Dated: February 1, 2016.

Minh Wendt,

Alternate Designated Federal officer, ACMH, Office of Minority Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

[FR Doc. 2016-02246 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4150-29-P
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: January 26, 2017 5 22820

________________________________ In the Matter of JOHNATHAN JOHNSON, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: November 29, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., Rose, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________ Johnathan Johnson, Malone, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered February 29, 2016 in Franklin County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, among other things, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition. Petitioner, an inmate, claimed that he was improperly denied a religious meal on February 26, 2015 while he was confined in his cell. He filed a grievance disputing the matter, but was advised by the Central Office Review Committee that his name was on the list of inmates who were to receive the religious meal. He then made a request under the Freedom of Information Law (see Public Officers Law art 6 [hereinafter FOIL]) for disclosure of the logbook containing the names of the correction officers assigned to his special housing unit when he was-2- 522820

allegedly denied the religious meal so that he could name them in a civil rights action. His request was denied and he filed an administrative appeal. When his administrative appeal was not timely decided, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel disclosure. Thereafter, his administrative appeal was decided and he was provided with the logbook, the only redaction being the inmates' names. Names of the officers on duty were not redacted. In light of this disclosure, respondent moved to dismiss the petition as moot. Petitioner, in turn, cross-moved to convert the proceeding to one for preaction discovery under CPLR 3102 (c). Supreme Court granted respondent's motion and denied petitioner's cross motion. Petitioner now appeals. We affirm. The petition is clearly moot as disclosure of the logbook provided petitioner with the names of the correction officers on duty during the relevant time period and he has, thus, received all of the relief that he requested and to which he is entitled (see Matter of DeFreitas v New York State Police Crime Lab, 141 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2016]). In view of this, there is no basis upon which to convert the proceeding to one for preaction disclosure under CPLR 3102 (c). Peters, P.J., Rose, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001059083
<NAME>                        NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1.000
<CASH>                               7802
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                       16336
<ALLOWANCES>                          390
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    28863
<PP&E>                              27119
<DEPRECIATION>                      10509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     149870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               23913
<BONDS>                            100000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                           3341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       149870
<SALES>                             33493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    33493
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    32457
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   3487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (2451)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (2451)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       (2451)
<EPS-BASIC>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Social Security Beneficiary Data

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Beneficiary databases— *number of beneficiaries       and average payment amounts*

Number of beneficiaries—*graph shows growth after 1969*

Trustees Report—*financial         outlook for Social Security*

SSI Report—*financial        status of the Supplemental Security Income program*

General information on Social Security program
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5586 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5586

 To amend title 17, United States Code, to provide that the first sale 
  doctrine applies to any computer program that enables a machine or 
                       other product to operate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2014

Mr. Farenthold introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 17, United States Code, to provide that the first sale 
  doctrine applies to any computer program that enables a machine or 
                       other product to operate.

    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 ``You Own Devices Act''.

SEC. 2. FIRST SALE DOCTRINE AND CERTAIN COMPUTER PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 109 of title 17, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Transfer of Certain Computer Programs.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 106 or section 
        117, if a computer program enables any part of a machine or 
        other product to operate, the owner of the machine or other 
        product is entitled to transfer an authorized copy of the 
        computer program, or the right to obtain such copy, when the 
        owner sells, leases, or otherwise transfers the machine or 
        other product to another person. The right to transfer provided 
        under this subsection may not be waived by any agreement.
            ``(2) Security and error correction.--Any right to receive 
        modifications to the computer program described in paragraph 
        (1) relating in whole or in part to security or error 
        correction that applied to the owner of the machine or other 
        product described in paragraph (1) shall apply to the person to 
        whom the machine or product and the copy of the computer 
        program are transferred.
            ``(3) Treatment of unauthorized copies.--Nothing in this 
        subsection should be construed as permitting the owner of a 
        machine or other product to retain an unauthorized copy of the 
        computer program described in paragraph (1) after transferring 
        the machine or other product and the copy of the computer 
        program to another person.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
transfers of computer programs occurring on or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 8.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following table sets forth all direct and indirect subsidiaries of Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited:



|                                                   |  |                             
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Name                                               |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|Alpha and Omega Semiconductor (Cayman) Ltd.        |  | Cayman Islands              
|                                                   | 
|Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Incorporated         |  | California                  
|                                                   | 
|Alpha & Omega Semiconductor (Hong Kong) Limited    |  | Hong Kong                   
|                                                   | 
|Alpha & Omega Semiconductor (Macau), Ltd.          |  | Macau                       
|                                                   | 
|Alpha and Omega Semiconductor (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. |  | Peoples Republic of China  
|                                                   | 
|Nissi High-tech Services (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.       |  | Peoples Republic of China  
|                                                   | 
|Alpha and Omega Semiconductor (Taiwan) Limited     |  | Taiwan                      
|                                                   | 
|Alpha and Omega Semiconductor (Shenzhen) Limited   |  | Peoples Republic of China  
|                                                   | 
|Alpha & Omega Semiconductor (Singapore) PTE. LTD.  |  | Singapore
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

DECLARATION OF JOSHUA SPERRY IN SUPPORT OF ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO

EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

EMILY P. RICH, Bar No. 168735

TRACY L. MAINGUY, Bar No. 176928

CAITLIN GRAY, Bar No. 305118

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

Telephone (510) 337-1001

Fax (510) 337-1023

E-Mail: bankruptcycourtnotices@unioncounsel.net

erich@unioncounsel.net

tmainguy@unioncounsel.net

cgray@unioncounsel.net

Attorneys for Creditor Engineers and Scientists of California, Local

20, IFPTE

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

In Re

PG&E CORPORATION,

and

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Case No. 19-30088 DM

CHAPTER 11

EXHIBIT B TO DECLARATION OF

JOSHUA SPERRY IN SUPPORT OF

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO

DEBTOR’S MOTION TO PAY

PREPETITION EMPLOYEE

OBLIGATIONS AND CONTINUE

WAGES AND BENEFITS

 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)

Date: February 27, 2019

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Location: U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 503-2 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:36:23 Page 1

of 4
In re PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Case No. 19-30088 DM

Exhibit B

To Declaration of Joshua Sperry iso ESC

Local 20’s Response to Debtor’s Motion

to Pay Prepetition Employee Obligations

and Continue Wages and Benefits

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 503-2 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:36:23 Page 2

of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 503-2 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:36:23 Page 3

of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 503-2 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:36:23 Page 4

of 4
#### *Brinson v. Brinson.*

Appeal by plaintiff from *Burney, J.,*November Term, 1950, of Lenoir. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 27 March, 1951.
## Death Probabilities

- Office of the Chief Actuary
- Actuarial Publications

 Annual Trustees Reports provide estimates describing the actuarial status of Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds under current law. In making these estimates, the Trustees make key demographic assumptions and economic assumptions. The intermediate set of assumptions reflects the Trustees’ best estimates of future experience. 

Actuarial Study Number 120

Files are available from the following Trustees Reports

Footer menu
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

William Alexander Glass a/k/a * From the 39th District

Bill Glass, Court of Haskell County,

 Trial Court No. 6417.

Vs. No. 11-12-00011-CR * January 30, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.