alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 97-40306

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JUAN DIAZ-ESPINOSA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi

(C-95-CR-244-2)

_________________________________________________________________

February 4, 1998

Before KING, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 We have read the briefs, reviewed the relevant portions

of the record and heard oral argument. As counsel for the

government pointed out in detail at oral argument, the defendant

did not file a written objection to the PSR or offer any sworn

testimony rebutting the relevant portion of the PSR. Under the

circumstances, the district court did not err in denying the

defendant a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
2

The district court’s judgment of conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1885

To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for adjustment of status

under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by extending

the deadline for classification petition and labor certification filings,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 2001

Mr. GEKAS (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. KING, and Ms. ROSLEHTINEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for

adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by extending the deadline

for classification petition and labor certification filings,

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Section 245(i) Exten5 sion Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1885 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

2 Section 245(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality

3 Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)) is amended—

4 (1) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ‘‘2001;’’

5 and inserting ‘‘2001, or during the 120-day period

6 beginning on the date of the enactment of the Sec7 tion 245(i) Extension Act of 2001;’’; and

8 (2) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as

9 follows:

10 ‘‘(C) who, in the case of a beneficiary of a peti11 tion for classification, or an application for labor

12 certification, described in subparagraph (B) that was

13 filed after January 14, 1998—

14 ‘‘(i) was physically present in the United

15 States on December 21, 2000; and

16 ‘‘(ii) demonstrates that the familial or em17 ployment relationship that is the basis of such

18 petition for classification or application for

19 labor certification existed on or before April 30,

20 2001;’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-206-1-SM

Agustin H. Sanchez

O R D E R

Defendant has written a letter to the court, dated May 4,

2010, in which he seeks the appointment of counsel “to assist

. . . in determining if there is a basis for my seeking a

sentence reduction.” The letter shall be docketed as a motion

for appointment of counsel.

The letter does not appear to constitute a petition for

relief under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and is not

construed as such.

The request for appointment of counsel is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

May 10, 2010

cc: Jennifer C. Davis, Esq.

Adam H. Bernstein, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00206-SM Document 37 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

segTEL, Inc.,

v. Civil No. 07-340-JL

Town of Hanover, et al,

O R D E R

On June 27, 2008, the parties filed a Motion to Stay

Proceeding. The court granted the motion on June 30, 2008, and

ordered that a status conference be scheduled on or about 90 days

from the date of the order. The status conference is currently

scheduled for Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. In the

interests of conserving resources, the parties are directed to

confer with one another and notify the deputy clerk if they would

prefer a telephone conference in lieu of personally appearing at

U.S. District Court in Concord for the status conference.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: September 29, 2008

cc: Robert D. Ciandella, Esq.

Robert M. Derosier, Esq.

Carolyn K. Cole, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00340-JL Document 22 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21914]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA-9261; AK-962-1410-HY-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Calista 
Corporation for lands located on Nunivak Island, Alaska. Notice of the 
decision will also be published four times in the Anchorage Daily News.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until October 20, 2008 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8cede7a2eee0e1a2efe3e2fae9f5ede2efe9ccede7a2eee0e1a2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d3c36733f3130733e32332b38243c333e381d3c36733f3130733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Dina L. Torres,
Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Resolution Branch.
[FR Doc. E8-21914 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Terry Thomas

v. Civil No. 07-cv-385-JL

NH State Prison, Warden

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated August 27, 2008.

SO ORDERED.

October 30, 2008 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Terry T. Thomas, Pro se

Susan P. McGinnis, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00385-JL Document 13 Filed 10/30/08 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Allan AUSTRIA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-10428. D.C. No. CR-97-00975-ACK-01.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 28, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Allan Austria appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in viola*673tion of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Austria’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has moved to withdraw as counsel of record on the ground that he failed to discover any arguable issues on appeal. Austria has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our review of the briefs, and our independent review of the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues. We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *673courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
exv10w2



 










EXHIBIT 10.2




February 9, 2004




John S. Chen

Chairman, CEO & President

Sybase, Inc.

One Sybase Drive

Dublin, CA 94568



Dear John:


This is to inform you of your 2004 Executive Compensation as approved by the
Sybase, Inc. Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors at the February
4, 2004 meeting. The cash component of your new compensation is retroactive to
January 1, 2004.




	 	1.	 	Cash compensation





	 	•	 	Annual base salary: $950,000
(Paid semi-monthly at $39,583.33)
	 
	 	•	 	Annual incentive bonus target: 122% ($1,160,000)
	 
	 	•	 	Annual total target earnings: $2,110,000





	 	 	 	Your annual bonus target will be based on Sybase, Inc. overall
company performance as follows:





	 	•	 	50% on Sybase revenue of $817M
	 
	 	•	 	50% on Sybase profit before taxes (PBT) of $172M





	 	 	 	Payment of annual incentive bonus will be based on following:





	 	a)	 	Sybase revenue:





	 	•	 	70% at 95% of target performance
	 
	 	•	 	100% at 100%
	 
	 	•	 	3 for 1 after 100% (e.g. 130% at 110%)
	 
	 	•	 	no cap





	 	b)	 	Sybase PBT





	 	•	 	70% at 70% of target performance
	 
	 	•	 	100% at 100%
	 
	 	•	 	3 for 1 after 100% (e.g. 130% at 110%)
	 
	 	•	 	no cap




Sybase, Inc.

One Sybase Drive

Dublin, CA 94568



 









 





John S. Chen

February 9, 2004

Page 2




	 	2.	 	Long-Term Incentives





	 	a)	 	Sybase Stock Options (with 4-year vesting):





	 	•	 	100,000 shares





	 	b)	 	Sybase restricted Stock Option Grant (3-year
cliff vest with performance acceleration, i.e. from 3-year
cliff vest to 2-year cliff vest if Sybase meets its 2004
budgeted revenue):





	 	•	 	250,000 shares at $0.10 per share



On behalf of the Board of Directors and our shareholders, let me take this
opportunity to thank you for your continued strong leadership and contributions
to Sybase, Inc.



Sincerely,



/S/ RICHARD C. ALBERDING



Richard C. Alberding

Compensation Committee Chairman and Board Member



	 	 	 
	cc:

	 	Nita White-Ivy
	

	 	HR File
#### Rachel Torres, Appellant, v Safety Cab Corp. et al., Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 418]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated November 1, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of *549Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see *Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *cf. Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmation of the defendants’ examining physician failed to objectively demonstrate that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent consequential or significant limitation of the use of her cervical or lumbar spine as a result of the subject accident (see *Black v Robinson,*305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]; *see also Aronov v Leybovich,*3 AD3d 511 [2004]; *Zavala v DeSantis,*1 AD3d 354 [2003]; *Claude v Clements,*301 AD2d 554, 555 [2003]; *Gamberg v Romeo,*289 AD2d 525, 526 [2001]; *Junco v Ranzi,*288 AD2d 440 [2001]). In light of the defendants’ failure to meet their initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see *Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]; *Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy,*226 AD2d 437, 438 [1996]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
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 Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
 AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
 ACTION: List of Applications Delayed more than 180 days.
 SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay and the expected completion date for action on each application is provided in association with each identified application.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535. Key to “Reason for Delay” 1. Awaiting additional information from applicant. 2. Extensive public comment under review. 3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis. 4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of special permit applications. Meaning of Application Number Suffixes N—New application. M—Modification request. PM—Party to application with modification request. Issued in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2008. Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.
 Modification to Special Permits
Application  No.
Applicant
Reason for delay
Estimated date of completion14167-M
Trinityrail, Dallas, TX
4
09-30-20088723-M
Alaska Pacific Powder Company, Anchorage, AK
1
09-30-200810950-M
The Fertilizer Institute, Washington, DC
1
10-31-200813583-M
Structural Composites Industries, Pomona, CA
1
10-31-2008
 
 
 New Special Permit Applications
Application No.
Applicant
Reason for delay
Estimated date of completion14643-N
World Airways, Inc. Peachtree City, GA
3
11-30-200814661-N
FIBA Technologies, Inc., Millbury, MA
4
09-30-200814663-N
Department of Energy, Washington, DC
1
10-31-200814664-N
Century Arms, Inc., Fairfax. VT
4
09-30-200814668-N
Lincoln Composites, Lincoln, NE
1
02-28-2009


[FR Doc. E8-22306 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
----

|   | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 2, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ RONALD J. BUSCHUR |
|                   |   |   |                  | Ronald J. BuschurPresident and Chief Executive OfficerPowerwave Technologies, Inc. |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jammadriteal Dunn

v. Civil No. 08-cv-178-PB

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Before the court is Jammadriteal Dunn’s petition for a writ

of habeas corpus (document no. 1), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The matter initially came before me for preliminary review

to determine whether or not the claims raised in the petition are

facially valid and may proceed. See Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United Sates District Courts

(“§ 2254 Rules”) (requiring initial review to determine whether

the petition is facially valid and may be served); see also

United States District Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d) (authorizing magistrate judge to preliminarily

review pro se prisoner filings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). 

I have previously recommended that one of Dunn’s three

claims be dismissed as not cognizable in a federal habeas

petition (document no. 3). That recommendation was approved

Case 1:08-cv-00178-PB Document 10 Filed 09/24/08 Page 1 of 3
2

without objection on July 18, 2008 (document no. 7). I also

ordered Dunn to amend his petition to demonstrate exhaustion of

his two remaining claims (document no. 4). Dunn has now filed a

motion to amend his petition (document no. 5). That motion is

granted.

Dunn’s motion to amend demonstrates that the two claims in

the habeas petition have been fully exhausted and may be

considered at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) & (b). 

Accordingly, I order the petition to be served on respondent. 

See § 2254 Rule 4. 

Respondent shall file an answer or other pleading in

response to the allegations made therein. See id. (requiring

reviewing judge to order a response to the petition). The

Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New Hampshire Office of

the Attorney General, as provided in the Agreement On Acceptance

Of Service, copies of this Order and the habeas petition

(document no. 1), as well as my previous Report and

Recommendation and Order (document nos. 3 & 4) and Dunn’s motion

to amend (document no. 5). 

Respondent shall answer or otherwise plead within thirty

(30) days of the date of this Order. The answer shall comply

Case 1:08-cv-00178-PB Document 10 Filed 09/24/08 Page 2 of 3
3

with the requirements of § 2254 Rule 5 (setting forth contents of

the answer). 

Upon receipt of the response, the Court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See § 2254 Rule 8 (providing

circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service 

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’ attorneys. 

SO ORDERED. 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 24, 2008

cc: Jammadriteal Dunn, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00178-PB Document 10 Filed 09/24/08 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-116-PB

Steven Delaurier

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

July 10, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for 

additional time to complete discovery and engage in plea

negotiations or prepare a defense. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from July 10, 2007 to October 10, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00116-PB Document 9 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The June 26, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to

September 26, 2007 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 21, 2007

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00116-PB Document 9 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-193-PB

Irene D. Howard

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

November 6, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete extensive discovery and address

psychological issues. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from November 6, 2007 to March 4, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

Case 1:07-cr-00193-PB Document 10 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The October 30, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to February 20, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 29, 2007

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00193-PB Document 10 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Integrated Labeling Systems, Inc.

v. Civil No. 08-00035-JL

Raymond Scipioni, et al.

O R D E R

A status conference was held in chambers on March 11, 2008.

By agreement of the parties, the following dates/deadlines

are established:

• the response deadline for any preliminary

discovery request is 21 days;

• objections to the parties’ preliminary

injunction, personal jurisdiction, and venue

motions are due May 2, 2008;

• replies to the above objections are due May

12, 2008;

• a hearing on the personal jurisdiction and

preliminary injunction issues (in that order)

will be held May 14, 2008 (1:30 p.m.) and May

15, 2008 (10:30 a.m.).

Case 1:08-cv-00035-JL Document 10 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The parties are limited to three preliminary depositions

regarding the above issues.

The plaintiff will file the motion to amend its complaint on

or before March 20, 2008. The defendant will answer the amended

complaint within seven days.

The waiver/estoppel defense asserted by the defendant is

stricken without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

March 12, 2008

cc: Cameron G. Shilling, Esq.

Derek D. Lick, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00035-JL Document 10 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 2