alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-60212 

Conference Calendar

__________________

CARLO WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOAN ROSS, RAYMOND ROBERTS,

FLOYD BASS, CO-1 HARRIS, LT.

HOLMAN, STEVE PUCKETT, ANN LEE,

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:96-CV-61-B-D

- - - - - - - - - -

June 26, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlo Williams, # 83004, challenges the dismissal of his

civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Williams argues that the "D-Custody" to which he was assigned

imposes atypical and significant hardship on him. We have

reviewed the record and Williams's brief and AFFIRM the district

court's dismissal because Williams failed to allege a legally

arguable constitutional claim. See Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc.,
No. 96-60212

-2-

964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992); Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct.

2293, 2300-01 (1995).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

 DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v.

 Case No. 04-cr-211-02-SM

Jose Peralta,

Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Peralta’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and 

trial for thirty days is granted (document no. 58). Trial has been rescheduled for 

the month of March 2012. Defendant Hardy shall file a waiver of speedy trial 

rights not later than February 21, 2012. On the filing of such waiver, his 

continuance shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance 

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would 

unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the 

circumstances. 

Case 1:04-cr-00211-SM Document 59 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 2
Final Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for April 4, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.

Jury selection will take place on April 17, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 3, 2012

cc: Behzad Mirhashem, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:04-cr-00211-SM Document 59 Filed 02/03/12 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 62 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 62

 Declaring a state of war between the United States and international 
                     terrorists and their sponsors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2001

 Mr. Barr of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Goode, Mr. Jones of 
 North Carolina, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. 
 Schaffer, and Mr. Souder) introduced the following joint resolution; 
     which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Declaring a state of war between the United States and international 
                     terrorists and their sponsors.

Whereas international terrorist organizations without provocation staged two 
        separate attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, New York 
        and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001;
Whereas any attack of international terrorism by a foreign country or entity on 
        the United States or its territories, possessions, or installations 
        should be considered an act of war; and
Whereas the Government of the United States should use all military, 
        intelligence, and financial resources available to prosecute action 
        against its enemies: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF WAR.

    Pursuant to Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution, 
the Congress hereby declares that a state of war exists between the 
United States and--
            (1) any entity that committed the acts of international 
        terrorism against the United States on September 11, 2001, or 
        commits acts of international terrorism against the United 
        States thereafter; and
            (2) any country or entity that has provided or provides 
        support or protection for any entity described in paragraph 
        (1).
The President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire 
naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the 
United States Government to carry on war against such entities and 
countries, and the Congress hereby pledges all the resources of the 
United States Government in order to bring the conflict to a successful 
termination.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

    In this joint resolution, the term ``international terrorism'' has 
the meaning given that term in section 2331(1) of title 18, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Financial Statements as of April 30, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                           AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                             APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                                   $1,832,000
<SECURITIES>                                                     $0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            $3,949,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                               $454,000
<INVENTORY>                                              $7,447,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        $10,202,000
<PP&E>                                                     $262,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   $0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          $16,576,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    $3,112,000
<BONDS>                                                          $0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            $0
<PREFERRED>                                                      $0
<COMMON>                                                $17,591,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                       $0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            $16,576,000
<SALES>                                                  $9,905,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         $9,905,000
<CGS>                                                    $5,418,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            $5,418,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         $5,016,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         $164,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           ($977,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       ($977,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  $0
<CHANGES>                                                        $0
<NET-INCOME>                                              ($977,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE

322 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA

BAR ADMISSION RULES :

:

:

:

:

:

: NO. 825

SUPREME COURT RULES

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15 th day of January, 2020 , upon the recommendation of the Board

of Law Examiners

, the proposal having been published for public comment in the

Pennsylvania Bulletin at 49 Pa.B. 5700 ( October 5, 2019 ) :

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of

Pennsylvania that Rule 3 22 of the Bar Admission Rules is amended in the attached form.

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and the

amendment s shall be effective in thirty (30) days

.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50327

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BENITO SUSTAITA-CARDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-685-1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Benito SustaitaCardoza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sustaita-Cardoza has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50327 Document: 00513309048 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
No. 15-50327

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-50327 Document: 00513309048 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sean Ahern

v. Civil No. 04-cv-474-SM

United States of America

O R D E R

Although his pleading is styled “Independent Motion for

Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2)(3),” in substance

Sean Ahern is seeking federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. In fact, he raises issues in his “Independent Motion”

identical to those previously raised in the § 2255 petition he

filed in Ahern v. United States, Civil No. 04-cv-474-SM. Relief

was denied in that case, and both this court and the court of

appeals denied a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1); Ahern v. United States, No. 05-1762 (1st Cir.,

September 21, 2005).

Ordinarily, a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas case should be

treated as a second or successive habeas petition, particularly

when the factual predicate of the motion challenges the

Case 1:04-cv-00474-SM Document 19 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 2
2

constitutionality of petitioner’s underlying conviction. Rodwell

v. Pepe, 324 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2003). As this pleading is

properly treated as a “second or successive application” for

habeas relief, Ahern must first “move in the appropriate court of

appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider

the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); United States v.

Barrett, 178 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 1999). Although transfer of this

matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is not mandated, requiring

petitioner to refile the same pleadings in the court of appeals

seems like an unnecessary imposition.

Accordingly, the court hereby transfers this matter to the

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to permit

petitioner to seek an order allowing a second or successive

petition under § 2244(b)(3).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

December 5, 2005

cc: Sean Ahern, pro se

Donald A. Feith, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00474-SM Document 19 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dwayne Hearns

Case No. 05-cv-413-SM

v.

New Hampshire State Prison, Warden

O R D E R

This case has been stayed since December 20, 2005, while the petitioner returns

to state court to exhaust all the issues. This case shall be administratively closed while

the stay is in effect. It is therefore ordered that the Petitioner shall request this Court to

lift the stay and preliminarily review his federal petition once he has exhausted state

remedies.

SO ORDERED.

March 6, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

cc: Dwayne Hearns, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00413-JL Document 7 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin Corson

v. Civil No. 04-cv-345-JD

New Hampshire State Prison, et al.

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 19

Motion Petitioning The Court Rhetorically For Permission To 

Speak Plainly

Ruling: Plaintiff was informed in April that he should

obtain the dentist’s name from his medical records. It is now

October and the case was dismissed in June. If plaintiff seeks

to reopen the case he must show when he sought his medical

records and when he got them. 

Entered by: James R. Muirhead, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Date: October 11, 2005

cc: Kevin Corson, pro se

Case 1:04-cv-00345-JD Document 20 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

JEFFREY EDWARDS, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR124 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on the request of the government made at the Initial 

Appearance on June 14, 2023 to declare this case as complex and to adjust the discovery and 

pretrial motions deadline. The defendant agreed to the request. The court finds from the 

representations by counsel for the parties that this case is so unusual and so complex due to the 

nature of the prosecution, the existence of novel questions of fact and law, and the amount of 

discovery, it would be unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for 

the trial within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The government shall provide Rule 16 discovery no later than July 14, 2023. 

2. A Telephone Status Conference is set for September 14, 2023 before Magistrate Susan 

M. Bazis to set further progression deadlines. Defendant is not required to participate in the call. 

3. The ends of justice have been served by granting such request and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the 

granting of the motion, i.e., from June 14, 2023, through September 14, 2023, shall be deemed 

excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the 

reason counsel require additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into consideration 

due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this case. The failure to grant 

additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). 

 Dated this 14th day of June, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00124-RFR-SMB Doc # 13 Filed: 06/14/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 35
Letter Amendment to Fee-For-Service Letter Agreement




 Confidential Treatment Requested 
 Omitted Portions Marked with [ * ] and Filed Separately with the SEC 
  
 Exhibit 10.32 
  
 Altera Corporation 
 101 Innovation Drive 
 San Jose, CA 95134 
 Phone: 408-544-7000 
  
 January 3, 2005 
  
 Attn: Jim Rosenberg 
 President, Arrow Alliance
Group 
 Arrow Electronics Inc. 
 3000 Bowers Avenue 

Santa Clara, CA 95051 
  

	 	Re:	Fee-For-Service Letter Agreement, dated as of May 22, 2002, as amended by letter agreements, dated June 10, 2002, August 1, 2002, September 3, 2002, January 15, 2003, December 8,
2003, April 1, 2004 and May 28, 2004 (collectively, the “Agreement”) 

  
 Dear Jim 
  
 This letter will
confirm our agreement to amend Exhibit A to the Agreement in order to update the listing of Customers within such the fee-for-service arrangement. Accordingly, the parties hereby agree that the Exhibit A attached to this letter shall replace, in its
entirety, the Exhibit A attached to the Agreement, which shall be deemed deleted. 
  
 This letter agreement and the Agreement supercede all prior discussions between the parties concerning this arrangement and is the full and complete expression of our agreement concerning this arrangement. The parties
agree that this letter agreement may be executed by facsimile and each such facsimile signature shall be deemed an original signature. If the foregoing terms are acceptable, please indicate your acceptance by signing below and returning a copy of
this letter. 
  

							
	 	 	 	 	 Very Truly Yours,

	 	 	 	 	 ALTERA CORPORATION

				
	 	 	 	 	 Signature:
	 	 /s/ Nathan Sarkisian


	 	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Nathan Sarkisian

	 	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 CFO and Sr. VP

			
	 AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
	 	 	 	 
			
	 ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC., on behalf of
 itself and its direct and indirect, subsidiaries
	 	 	 	 
				
	 Signature:
	 	 /s/ Jim Rosenberg

	 	 	 	 
	 Name:
	 	 Jim Rosenberg
	 	 	 	 
	 Title:
	 	 President, Arrow Alliance Group
	 	 	 	 









 Confidential Treatment Requested 
 Omitted Portions Marked with [ * ] and Filed Separately with the SEC 
  
 Exhibit A to Letter Agreement 
  
 Customers, Implementation Dates, Fees, Margins, Target Inventory Levels and Max. DSO Periods 
  

											
	 Customer
 (Special
Conditions)

	 	Implementation
Date

	 	Monthly
Service Fee

	 	Margin
Percentage

	 	 Target
Inventory
 Levels

	 	Maximum
DSO
Period


	[ * ]	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

  
 Key to Special Conditions: 

 
 “Customers” shall include their affiliated companies to the extent mutually
agreed upon. 
  
 (1) For this Customer only, Altera agrees that it will pay all
reasonable standard transportation and delivery costs (excluding any expedited and premium costs), duties and tariffs for (a) all products shipped from Altera or Altera Int. to Arrow’s premises in Malaysia and (b) all products shipped to
Customer’s CMs premises in South America from Arrow’s premises in Malaysia.
Exhibit 10.20


 


Non-Employee Board of Director Compensation


 


The
compensation package for non-employee directors of Plum Creek Timber Company,
Inc. (“Plum Creek”) is currently comprised of annual cash retainers, meeting
fees and grants of Plum Creek common stock. 
Each director receives a $40,000 annual retainer for service to the Plum
Creek Board of Directors (the “Board”).  
The Chairman of the Board receives an additional annual retainer of
$30,000, the Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional annual cash
retainer of $10,000, and the Chairman of the Compensation Committee and the
Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee each receives an
additional annual retainer of $5,000. 
Each director also receives a $2,000 fee for attendance at regular
meetings of the Board.  Members of the
Audit Committee receive a $2,000 fee for attendance at committee meetings,
while members of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and members
of the Compensation Committee receive a $1,500 fee for attendance at committee
meetings.  Unless otherwise designated by
the committee chair, each committee member receives one-half of the regular
committee meeting fee for attending committee meetings held telephonically.  In addition to the foregoing cash fees,
directors also received 2,000 shares of restricted common stock.  Directors have the choice to elect to take
all or a portion of their Board fees in common stock of the Company, and may
defer all or part of their fee compensation. 
Directors are reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with
attending Board and committee meetings.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            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 PVC Container Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to such officer's 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 as of
the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

Date: February 14, 2006


                                      /s/ William J. Bergen
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Name: William J. Bergen
                                      Title: President & Chief Executive Officer


                                      /s/ Jeffrey Shapiro
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Name: Jeffrey Shapiro
                                      Title: Chief Financial Officer

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.


                                       26
#### John Thomas CAPPS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 22, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.