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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1076

ABU TAIOB HAQ,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A70-566-285)

Submitted: September 12, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Seguinot, THE HELEIN LAW GROUP, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for

Petitioner. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B.

Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,

Virginia, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Abu Taiob Haq, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

denying a motion to reconsider the Board’s denial of his motion to

reopen his removal proceedings. We have reviewed the

administrative record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its

discretion in denying Haq’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)

(2005).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
MASI-2014-Nikken First Amd-EX 10.2






Exhibit 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of the 8th day of January, 2014 by and between NIKKEN, Inc., a California corporation (“Seller”), and Masimo Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Buyer”).
R E C I T A L S
A.Seller and Buyer have entered into that certain Agreement of Purchase and Sale Agreement and Escrow Instructions dated November 1, 2013 (“Original Purchase Agreement”, the Original Purchase Agreement as amended by this First Amendment, collectively, the “Purchase Agreement”), relative to the sale/purchase of that certain real property located at 52 Discovery Way, Irvine, California (the “Property”).


B.Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Original Purchase Agreement to among other things extend the Feasibility Period on the terms and conditions set forth below.


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree to amend the Original Purchase Agreement as follows:
1.Definitions.  Any capitalized term used, but not defined, herein shall have its respective meaning as set forth in the Original Purchase Agreement.


2.Feasibility Period Adjustment.  The parties hereby agree to extend the expiration of the Feasibility Period set forth in Section 1.12 of the Original Purchase Agreement, from 5:00 PM (Pacific Time) on January 8, 2014 to 5:00 PM (Pacific Time) on January 10, 2014.  All references to the Feasibility Period shall mean the Feasibility Period as extended by the terms of this First Amendment.


3.Purchase Agreement in Full Force and Effect.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the Original Purchase Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed, and shall continue in full force and effect.  In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms set forth herein and the terms of the Original Purchase Agreement, the terms contained in this First Amendment shall govern and control.


4.Counterparts; Facsimile; E-Mail.  This First Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  For purposes of this First Amendment, any signature transmitted by facsimile or e-mail (in pdf. or comparable format) shall be considered to have the same legal and binding effect as any original signature.
[Signatures On Following Page]













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have entered into this First Amendment effective as of the day and year first above written.
	
		
	SELLER:
	NIKKEN, Inc.,
a California corporation

By:/s/ Kurt H. Fulle___________________
Name: Kurt H. Fulle
Its: President and CEO

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	BUYER:
	Masimo Corporation,
a Delaware corporation

By: /s/ Yongsam Lee_______________
Name: Yongsam Lee
Its: EVP, Operations and CIO
----

**EXHIBIT**
**      32.0**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:                November 14, 2007 |   | /s/Robert                T. Strong                   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                        |   | Robert                T. Strong                      |   |
|   |                                        |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                                        |   |                                                 |   |
|   |                                        |   |                                                 |   |
|   |                                        |   |                                                 |   |
|   | Date:                November 14, 2007 |   | /s/ Diane              J. Colyer                     |   |
|   |                                        |   | Diane                J. Colyer                       |   |
|   |                                        |   | Operations                Officer                    |   |
|   |                                        |   | (principal                financial officer)         |   |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Quaint Oak Bancorp, Inc. and will be      retained by Quaint Oak Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. *
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.45



AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) modifies certain terms and conditions of the employment agreement effective March 16, 2015 between Dirk McMahon and United HealthCare Services, Inc. (the “Employment Agreement”). Accordingly, Executive’s Employment Agreement is amended as follows, effective as of the last date executed below:


Section 3.E. is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
“By Executive for Good Reason.  Executive may terminate Executive’s employment for Good Reason, as defined below.  Executive must give UnitedHealth Group written notice specifying in reasonable detail the circumstances constituting Good Reason: i) within 120 days of becoming aware of such circumstances described in (a), (b), or (c) below; or ii) at any time on or before one year following a change described in (d) below, or such circumstances will not constitute Good Reason.  If the circumstances constituting Good Reason are reasonably capable of being remedied, UnitedHealth Group will have 60 days to remedy such circumstances.   “Good Reason” will exist if UnitedHealth Group takes any of the following actions, without Executive’s consent:  (a) reduces Executive’s base salary or target bonus percentage other than in connection with a general reduction affecting a group of employees; (b) moves Executive’s primary work location more than 50 miles; (c) makes changes that substantially diminish Executive’s duties or responsibilities; or (d) Executive no longer reports to Larry Renfro, Chief Executive Officer, Optum.”
The third sentence of Section 5.D. is hereby amended to read: 
“Executive agrees that he/she will not, without UnitedHealth Group's prior written consent, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, directly or indirectly, for Executive or for any other person or entity, as agent, employee, officer, director, consultant, owner, principal, partner or shareholder, or in any other individual or representative capacity, engage in any of the following activities.”


Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect according to its terms.




	
						
	UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
	 
	DIRK MCMAHON

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ D. Ellen Wilson
	 
	By:
	/s/ Dirk McMahon

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Date:
	5/31/17
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO N IN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-21-0000377

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
ROBERT M. GEORGE, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOLYN A. GEORGE, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(FC-D NO. 19-1-430)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEAL ( By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.) Upon consideration of Plaintiff-Appellant Robert M. George, Sr.'s July 16, 2021 Motion to Withdraw Appeal, the papers in support, and the record,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed, under Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(a).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, July 21, 2021. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Alexa D.M. Fujise Associate Judge /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-21-0000377 21-JUL-2021 10:54 AM Dkt. 18 ORD
* 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.

1 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41591

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEROY CONNER, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:04-CR-32-1 

 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leroy Conner, Jr. appeals the 33-month sentence of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to counterfeit

securities charges. He asserts that his sentence violates United

States v. Booker.

1

Because Conner’s sentence was enhanced based on facts

neither admitted by him nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable

doubt, it was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment and
2 Id. at 756.

3 United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir. 2005).

4 Id.

5 United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 377 n.62 (5th Cir. 2005).

2

Booker.

2 Where, as here, the defendant preserved the error in

district court, we will vacate the sentence and remand unless the

Government shows that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt.3 To do this, it must show beyond a reasonable doubt that

the court would have given the defendant the same sentence had it

thought the Guidelines were advisory.4

The Government has not met this burden. Although the

district court stated that it would have imposed a 36-month

sentence had the Guidelines been advisory, the court was able to

impose that longer sentence at the time as it was within the

Guidelines range of 33 to 41 months. As a result, we are unsure

whether its statement was a misstatement. Because we must vacate

Conner’s sentence due to Booker error, we do not address Conner’s

argument that the district court erred by denying him a reduction

for acceptance of responsibility.5

Conner’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for

resentencing.
#### Nasien T. Khouri, Plaintiff, v. George F. Nohra and George N. Ganim, Defendants.

The opening affidavit neither states nor claims any ground for the appeal. The appellant being in default, and no merit being shown or asserted, the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, with costs. Present — Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
209 La. 537

#### SCACCIAFERRO v. HYMEL.

No. 37816.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 1946.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1946.

*88C. A. Blanchard, of Donaldsonville, for plaintiff and appellant.

George R. Blum, of Donaldsonville, and Clarence F. Favret, of New Orleans, for defendant and appellee.

KENNON, Justice.

This is a controversy over the costs in a divorce proceeding already, decided by this Court on the merits. See 206 La. 973, 20 So.2d 284.

After the Supreme Court’s -decree was final, the wife filed a rule in the district court to tax against her husband, as costs, an item of $39.75, paid by her to the court reporter as one-half of the bill for transcribing the testimony in the district court, and for $43.77, the costs of printing the brief presented by her attorney to this Court. The husband answered, denying liability for these amounts and prayed, under Article 908 of the Code of Practice, for a judgment in his favor for the costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court amounting to $118.50. The district judge rendered judgment in favor of the wife for $83.52, and dismissed the husband’s claim. The husband was granted an appeal to this Court.

The original judgment of the district court cast the husband for costs. That portion of the judgment was here affirmed. Therefore, he is responsible for the charge of the court reporter.

The husband, then the appellant in the Supreme Court, was successful to the extent of reversing the award of the attorney’s fees and reducing the alimony from $40 to $30 a month. Since the Supreme Court did not exercise its power of taxing the costs of the appeal, Act 229 of 1910, the liability therefor is governed by Article 908 of the Code of Practice, which provides “-If the judgment be reversed, in whatever degree it may be, the appellee shall pay the costs.’Therefore, the wife, as the appellee against whom the judgment was amended, is responsible for the costs of the appeal on the first hearing in this Court, and the question of whether her expense in printing the brief is a part of these costs passes out of the case. Goldberg v. Banta Bros. et al., 183 La. 10, 162 So. 786; Maison Blanche Co. v. Gilbride, La.App., 164 So. 813.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is set aside and judgment is now rendered fixing the responsibility for the controversial items of costs, as follows: $39.75 for transcribing the testimony, to be paid by Philip Scacciaferro; $118.50, the costs of the original appeal, to be paid by Yvonne Hymel. The costs in. the present rule and the appeal thereon to. be paid by Philip Scacciaferro.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39703

STATE OF IDAHO
,

Plaintiff-Respondent
,

v.

BRIAN KEITH BLACK
,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 304

Filed: January 3, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seve nth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of four years , for burglary

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jas on C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Brian Keith Black pled guilty to burglary . I.C. §§ 18

- 1401, 18

- 1403 . The district court

sentenced Black to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four

years

. Black appeals.

Sentencing is a ma tter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P. 2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s en tire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho2 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Black ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellees, v. Richard Henry Wotchko, Defendant-Appellant. People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellees, v. Richard Lee Vesper, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. Nos. 66-4M, 66-5M. (Abstract of Decision.)

Fifth District.

August 2, 1966.

*152Emerson Baetz, of Alton, for appellant; Joseph R. Bartylak, State’s Attorney, of Edwardsville, for appellee.

Opinion by JUSTICE MORAN. Not to be published in full.
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

     I,  Dennis  Sunshine, Chief Executive Officer of Orbit International Corp.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as enacted by  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:
(1)     the  Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2010 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies
with  the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934;  and
(2)     information  contained  in  the  Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of operations of Orbit
International  Corp.

Dated: August 16, 2010
                                   /s/ Dennis Sunshine
                                   -------------------
                                   Dennis Sunshine
                                   Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4163 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4163

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
    coastwise trade and on the Great Lakes and their tributary and 
    connecting waters in trade with Canada for the vessel MEDRX III.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 24, 1996

Mr. Young of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
    coastwise trade and on the Great Lakes and their tributary and 
    connecting waters in trade with Canada for the vessel MEDRX III.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 
289), and sections 12106 and 12107 of title 46, United States Code, the 
Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation 
with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade and 
on the Great Lakes and their tributary and connecting waters in trade 
with Canada for the vessel MEDRX III (United States official number 
682848).
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 16, 2014

No. 04-14-00230-CV

BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT,

Appellant

v.

LA CANTERA DEVELOPMENT CORP.,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-03133

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to consolidate appeal numbers 04-14-00227-

CV, 04-14-00228-CV, 04-14-00229-CV, and 04-14-00230-CV. Based on the representations in 

the motion regarding the similarities in the cases, this court has determined that the appeals 

should be consolidated for briefing and argument. It is therefore ORDERED that the motion to 

consolidate is GRANTED. The parties shall file all motions, briefs, and other documents as if 

the four appeals were one case, but shall include all four appeal numbers in the style. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.3(a). The records for the four appeals shall remain separated. The four appeals will 

be argued together, as a single appeal, and the total time limit for each side at oral argument shall 

equal the ordinary time limit for a single appeal absent a motion requesting different time 

considerations. The court will dispose of all four appeals with the same judgment, opinion, and 

mandate.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit101BaseSalaries




 
EXHIBIT 10.1




BASE SALARIES OF, AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS WITH, 
NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 




Effective April 1, 2014, the annual base salaries for the Named Executive Officers set forth in the Company’s proxy statement dated March 14, 2014 are as follows:   




	
			
	Mario Longhi
	President & Chief Executive Officer
	$1,215,000

	David B. Burritt
	Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
	$721,000

	George F. Babcoke
	Senior Vice President – European Operations, and President USSK
	$562,000

	Michael S. Williams
	Senior Vice President – Strategic Planning & Business Development
	$562,000

	Douglas R. Matthews   
	Senior Vice President – North American Flat-Rolled Operations
	$525,000






    
The following perquisites are also available to the Named Executive Officers listed above: personal use of corporate aircraft and automobiles; club memberships; financial planning and tax preparation services; company-paid physicals; limited personal use of corporate properties; tickets to entertainment and sporting events; matching contributions to charities; relocation expenses and residential and personal security services; and, in the case of executives on foreign assignment, foreign service premiums, the services of a driver, housing and utility benefits, foreign service cost of living adjustment and allowances for communications and home leave.  Additionally, there are tax gross ups and reimbursements associated with foreign service.
#### Joseph Gold, Respondent, v. Charles Lerner and Another, Appellants.

Motion granted, without costs. The first three amendments, being consented to, are allowed. We think the fourth also is proper. Present — Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ. Settle order on notice before Mr. Justice Jenks.