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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WALTER LEE SADLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-4243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WALTER LEE SADLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge; Carl Horn, III, Magistrate Judge. (CR-95-134-V)

Submitted: September 15, 2003 Decided: March 4, 2004
- 2 -

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert

James Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer Marie Hoefling,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Walter Lee Sadler appeals

the magistrate judge’s order directing his detention pending a

hearing on the revocation of his supervised release (No. 03-4079),

and the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and

imposing a fourteen-month custodial sentence (No. 03-4243).

Sadler’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious

issues for appeal but examines the validity of the district court’s

revocation order nevertheless. Sadler has not filed a pro se

supplemental brief though notified of his opportunity to do so.

For the following reasons, we dismiss both appeals.

Sadler’s appeal from the magistrate judge’s order

directing his pre-revocation detention is moot following his

stipulation to several violations of his supervised release and the

district court’s imposition of a post-revocation sentence. See

United States v. O’Shaughnessy, 772 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir. 1985)

(citing Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1982)). Likewise,

because Sadler has been unconditionally discharged from custody and

because there are no continuing collateral consequences from the

district court’s revocation order and sentence, Sadler’s appeal

from that order is also moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,

10 (1998).
- 4 -

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore dismiss Sadler’s appeals as moot. This court

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If the client 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 the client.

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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6713
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ABEL PARAMA BORROMEO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-241) Submitted: February 13, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abel Parama Borromeo, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's garnishment order. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Borromeo , No. CR-89-241 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 19, 1995). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TDC INTERNATIONAL CORP.

f/k/a G.E. THOMPSON DEVELOPMENT CORP, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-cv-14792

Hon. Robert H. Cleland

v.

JAE L. BURNHAM, d/b/a QUICK AND

EASY MOVING, and QUICK AND EASY

MOVING, LLC

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

BRIAN C. GRANT (P71066)

O’Reilly Rancilio, PC

Attorney for Plaintiff

12900 Hall Road, Ste. 350

Sterling Heights, MI 48313

(586) 726-1000

bgrant@orlaw.com

________________________________________/

STATUS UPDATE

Pursuant to this Court’s Order staying the above action due to Defendant Jae L. Burnham 

filing for bankruptcy protection, Plaintiff presents the following as its update with regard to the 

adversary proceedings filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan, 

Case No. 17-80176-swd:

As this Court is aware, Defendant Jae L. Burnham filed for bankruptcy protection which 

automatically stayed the instant action pursuant to 11 U.S.C §362(a). On November 17, 2017, 

Plaintiff filed an adversary proceeding arguing that the debt for contempt of court sanctions

against Defendant is not dischargeable. 

Case 2:08-cv-14792-RHC-MKM ECF No. 66 filed 07/13/18 PageID.689 Page 1 of 2
J:\TDC International\1 - Jae Burnham\Pleadings\Status Update.doc

On January 9, 2018, the bankruptcy court entered a default against Defendant for failing 

to plead or otherwise defend himself. Following that, on January 12, 2018 Plaintiff filed its 

Motion for Default Judgment to render the debt nondischargeable. However, on March 21, 2018, 

Defendant had counsel appear for a telephonic hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default 

Judgment and the bankruptcy court judge denied the motion and allowed Defendant the 

opportunity to present a defense to the allegations.

Following the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, the court set a 

Scheduling Order on May 31, 2018 permitting Plaintiff to file a Motion for Summary Judgment 

within 35 days from the date of the Scheduling Order. Based upon this deadline, Plaintiff filed 

its Motion for Summary Judgment on July 2, 2018. To date, Defendant has not filed a response 

to the Motion for Summary Judgment, which said response is due on or before July 16, 2018. 

Plaintiff will file another status update with this Court in 90 days.

Respectfully Submitted,

O’REILLY RANCILIO, PC

_/s/ Brian C. Grant__________

Brian C. Grant (P71066)

12900 Hall Road, Suite 350

Sterling Heights, MI 48313

(586) 726-1000

bgrant@orlaw.com

Case 2:08-cv-14792-RHC-MKM ECF No. 66 filed 07/13/18 PageID.690 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-20585

v. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

PETER HENDRICKSON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER VACATING

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on May 17, 2012 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

By order dated April 5, 2012, the Court instructed Defendant and his counsel to be

prepared to address a particular issue at a forthcoming resentencing hearing — namely,

“whether Defendant’s offense level and resulting sentencing range under the U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines should reflect a two-level increase under § 3C1.1 of the Guidelines

for conduct that constituted a willful obstruction or attempted obstruction of the

administration of justice.” (4/5/2012 Order at 5.) In accordance with this order,

Defendant and his counsel addressed this issue at a May 15, 2012 resentencing hearing, as

2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Doc # 137 Filed 05/17/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2250
1

As discussed at the May 15 hearing, Defendant’s May 11, 2012 sentencing

memorandum was accompanied by an exhibit that inadvertently disclosed the CM/ECF

username and password of one of Defendant’s attorneys. In response to this discovery, the

password for the attorney’s CM/ECF account has been changed, and the Court has ordered that

the exhibits accompanying Defendant’s sentencing memorandum be placed under seal. 

However, because these exhibits generally are not subject to filing under seal, and because the

concern identified at the May 15 hearing may be remedied through a more limited redaction of

the username and password disclosed on a single page of Exhibit C to Defendant’s May 11, 2012

sentencing memorandum (i.e., the page identified with Bates No. 63), counsel for Defendant is

instructed to re-file the exhibits to the sentencing memorandum with this specific information

redacted. 

2

well as in a sentencing memorandum filed shortly before this hearing.1 Having

considered the arguments of counsel on this issue at the May 15 hearing, and having

reviewed the sentencing memorandum and accompanying materials submitted by

Defendant in connection with this issue, the Court has determined, for the reasons stated

on the record at the May 15 hearing, that a two-level increase under § 3C1.1 of the

Guidelines would not be appropriate. Accordingly, having now addressed and resolved

this matter,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s April 5, 2012

order to show cause is VACATED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: May 17, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on May 17, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Ruth A. Gunther 

Case Manager

2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Doc # 137 Filed 05/17/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2251
exv10w50






EXHIBIT 10.50




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




          This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), by
and between Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola” or the “Company”) and Gregory Q. Brown (the “Executive”)
dated August 27, 2008, is made and entered into as of the 15th day of December, 2008, by
and between the Company and Executive. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined
shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement.




     1. Subject in all cases to the prior execution and non-revocation of a release substantially
in the form attached to the Employment Agreement as Exhibit F, notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in the Employment Agreement (or in any related equity grant agreement), amounts
that are non-qualified deferred compensation under Section 409A that would otherwise be payable,
restricted stock units that would otherwise have been settled, RSU Cash-Out Payments that would
otherwise have been made and benefits that would otherwise be provided, in each case pursuant to
Section 5(a)(i) and (iii), Section 5(b)(i) and (iii) or Section 5(g) shall be paid, with Interest,
or settled, or made, or provided, on the first business day after the date that is six months
following the Executive’s “separation from service” within the meaning of Section 409A.



     2. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Employment
Agreement remain in full force and effect and are unmodified hereby.
#### Theresa AMMANN, Respondent, v. John R. AMMANN, Appellant.

No. 65647.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 4, 1995.

William Bernard Haller, Ellisville, William R. Hirsch, St. Louis, for appellant.

Morton R. Newman, Clayton, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John R. Ammann, appeals from a decree of dissolution entered in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis wherein respondent, Theresa Ammann, was awarded seven hundred dollars a month maintenance, the majority of marital property, and attorneys fees. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, and no error of law appears. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Bernard W. SOUTHGATE, IV, Respondent.

No. 89-SC-6-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Sept. 7, 1989.

*922Bruce K. Davis, Director, Kentucky Bar Ass’n, Barbara S: Rea, Asst. Bar Counsel, Kentucky Bar Ass’n, Frankfort, for complainant.

William I. Bubenzer, Covington, for respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

STEPHENS, Chief Justice.

Respondent Bernard W. Southgate, IV, was charged by the Inquiry Tribunal of the Kentucky Bar Association with violations of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6), D.R. 5-101(A), and D.R. 7-102(A)(l) and (2) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was alleged to have committed these infractions through his attempts to represent an estate at a time when his professional judgment in doing so was clouded by personal interests in financial gain, as well as his interest in a particular item of property which was an asset of the estate. The Board of Governors unanimously found respondent guilty of the charged unethical and unprofessional conduct tending to bring the bar of Kentucky into disrepute. A majority of the Board recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for thirty (30) days.

Upon review of the Board’s decision, and having considered the record including respondent’s notice of review, it is the decision of this Court that Bernard W. South-gate, IV be suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty (30) days and directed to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Application for reinstatement shall be governed by Supreme Court Rule 3.510.

STEPHENS, C.J., and GANT, LEIBSON and VANCE, JJ., concur.

COMBS, LAMBERT and WINTER-SHEIMER, JJ., concur, but would impose a public reprimand instead of suspension.
**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 Quarterly Report of TELOS, INC. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pierre A. Narath,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Pierre
              A.
              NarathPierre
                A. NarathPresident
              August
                  15, 2007
Exhibit B

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 462-2 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 462-2 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 462-2 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 462-2 Filed 02/19/19 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 462-2 Filed 02/19/19 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 462-2 Filed 02/19/19 Page 6 of 7
with counsel for the affected parties, as appropriate, and counsel will have the 

ability to file objections with the Court. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 462-2 Filed 02/19/19 Page 7 of 7
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 301 Filed 09/11/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 301 Filed 09/11/18 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 301 Filed 09/11/18 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 301 Filed 09/11/18 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 301 Filed 09/11/18 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 301 Filed 09/11/18 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 301 Filed 09/11/18 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 301 Filed 09/11/18 Page 8 of 8
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-06-00371- CV

Jo hnie Je nning s, App e lla nt

v. Carolyn Bin dseil, Dan B ind seil, Jann alyn Welch, Jul ian Welch, Allen Knodel, Betty K node l, D ale A. F r ie se nhahn , Ho r ac io A ya la, Ri c har d Ar am e ndia , D ar yl P ay ne , M e linda P ay ne , D e anna S. W ils on, Ro dne y W ils on, D. M . St ulle r , W ill iamHal l, C lyd e M ar bac h, Kurt Menking, Kather ine Sw oboda, Don Wallace, Charles Witt ler, Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C2005- 0149 B , HO NORAB LE JACK H . ROB ISO N, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
J ohnie J enning s has appe aled f rom the judg ment signe d by the di strict court on May 30, 2006. The a

ppellees ha

ve sug g ested a

batement of this a

ppeal beca

use the judgme nt w as not final in that it failed to dispose of attorne y ’s fe es issues. In re s p o n s e t o a query by this Court’s clerk, J enning s filed a letter

attachinga copy

of a judg ment an d letter sig ned on May 30, 2006 by

the district court. The judgme n t d o es not mention attorney ’s fe es, while the le tter deta ils the court’s intended attorne y ’s fe es aw ards a nd direc ts appellee s’ counsel to prepa re an order . The pa

rties ag ree that no or de r o n atto rn e y ’s fe e s h a s b e e n s ig ne d. Jenn ing s’ s c ouns e l a lso s tat ed that a pp e lle e s’ attorney s intended to reque st the district c ourt to r econside r its intended awa rd of attorney ’s fe es and neede d a re porter’ s rec ord of the a ttorney ’s fe e proc eedingin order to pr epar e that cha lleng e.2 The pa rties’ re prese ntations persuade us that the judgme nt a ppeale d from is not final
and that the no tic e of a

pp e a l wa s p re matur e . We the re fo re a bate the a pp e a l until fu

rt he r o rd e r o f t

his Court. Appellees a

re or dere d to fil e a re p o rt with this C ourt monthly on or bef ore the 16th of the month reportingon the status of proceeding s below unti l the abate ment is lifted. Either par ty may
re qu e st that th e a

bate me nt b e lif

te d w he n th e tr ia l c ourt

ha s ent ered a jud g me nt d isp os ingof a ll iss ue s.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ember ton and Waldrop Abated Filed: September

22, 2006
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





The
      undersigned, David Neuberg, the Chief Executive Officer of Karat Platinum Inc.
      (Formerly Sentra Consulting Corp.) (the "Company"), does hereby certify under
      the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September
      30,
      2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.











Dated:
                November 14, 2008
            
            /s/
                David NeubergDavid
                NeubergChief
                Executive Officer










A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.1





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 RiT Technologies Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eran Ayzik, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and





(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: June 30, 2011





By: /s/ Eran Ayzik


Eran Ayzik


President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Carl Edward WILLIAMS, Appellant. v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

No. 65854.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 21, 1995.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Carl Edward Williams (“Defendant”) entered a guilty plea to the charge of first degree sexual assault, § 566.040 RSMo 1986. Defendant was sentenced to six years imprisonment. In his appeal, Defendant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record and find the judgment of the motion court is based on findings that are not clearly erroneous. We affirm.

*824An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).