alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 40375 (f rev)

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Oscar F. GONZALEZ

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Upon Further Review

Decided 11 December 2023

________________________

Military Judge: Pilar G. Wennrich.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 21 July 2022 by GCM convened at Joint 

Base Charleston, South Carolina. Sentence entered by military judge on 

20 September 2022: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 6 months, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances for 6 months, and reduction to E-1. 

For Appellant: Major Jenna M. Arroyo, USAF; Major Jarett F. Merk, 

USAF.

For Appellee: Captain Olivia B. Hoff, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before JOHNSON, CADOTTE, and MASON, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, in 

accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one specification of battery upon a spouse and one specification of assault consummated by 

a battery, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 
United States v. Gonzalez, No. ACM 40375 (f rev)

2

10 U.S.C. § 928 (Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 2019 ed.). The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 

six months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances for six months, and reduction 

to the grade of E-1. The convening authority took no action on the findings or 

sentence.

Appellant’s case is before us a second time. This case was originally submitted for our review with one assignment of error concerning two missing attachments to Prosecution Exhibit 1, the stipulation of fact. On 8 September 

2023, this court remanded the case to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial 

Judiciary, to account for the missing attachments. United States v. Gonzalez, 

No. ACM 40375, 2023 CCA LEXIS 378, at *5 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 8 Sep. 2023)

(unpub. op.). On 29 September 2023, a detailed military judge issued a certificate of correction attaching the two missing attachments to the record of trial. 

Appellant’s case was then returned to this court.

The record of trial is now complete. On 21 November 2023, Appellant again 

submitted his case for our review, this time without further assignment of error. 

The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no 

error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, the findings and the sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
No. 87-725.

#### Cutillo et al. *v.*Cinnelli.

C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom

The Chief Justice and Justice O’Connor join, dissenting.

In *Weatherford*v. *Bursey,*429 U. S. 545, 558 (1977), we held that establishing a violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires a showing of “at least a realistic possibility” of prejudice to the defendant or benefit to the prosecution. See also *United States*v. *Morrison,*449 U. S. 361, 365-366 (1981). This case presents the issue of who bears the burden of persuasion for establishing prejudice or lack thereof when the Sixth Amendment violation involves the transmission of confidential defense strategy information. The First Circuit held that where confidential defense strategy information is transmitted to the prosecution and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of prejudice, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to prove that there was no prejudice to the defendant from the disclosure. *Cinelli*v. *City of Revere,*820 F. 2d 474, 478, 480 (1987); accord, *United States*v. *Mastroianni,*749 F. 2d 900, 907-908 (CA1 1984). This position conflicts with the approach of other Circuits of requiring the *1038defendant to prove prejudice. *United States*v. *Steele,*727 F. 2d 580, 586-587 (CA6), cert. denied *sub nom. Scarborough*v. *United States,*467 U. S. 1209 (1984); *United States*v. *Irwin,*612 F. 2d 1182, 1186-1189 (CA9 1980). It also conflicts with a third position that once a defendant shows that the prosecution has improperly-obtained confidential defense strategy information or has intentionally placed an informer in the defense camp then no showing of prejudice is required, for those acts constitute a *per se*violation of the Sixth Amendment. *United States*v. *Costanzo,*740 F. 2d 251, 254-255 (CA3 1984), cert. denied, 472 U. S. 1017 (1985). Because of these conflicting approaches among the Circuits, I would grant certiorari.
10213.

#### Crowley *v.*The State.

Decided March 7, 1919.

Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Nashville— Judge Christian. October 14, 1918.

J. *C. Smith, W. R. Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. H. Gary, solicitor, H. L. Jackson,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

The defendant’s motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. Upon the trial the defendant introduced no evidence and made no statement. The evidence for the State not only authorized but demanded the verdict rendered, and the coui-t did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
IV

House Calendar No. 254

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 549

[Report No. 105–740]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for

military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military

personnel strengths for fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 23, 1998

Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the

Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel

strengths for fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations

4 for fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the Depart5 ment of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths
2

HRES 549 RH

1 for fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes. All points

2 of order against the conference report and against its con3 sideration are waived. The conference report shall be con4 sidered as read.

House Calendar No. 254

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 549

[Report No. 105–740]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference recal year 1999, and for other purposes. to prescribe military personnel strengths for fis- military activities of the Department of Defense, thorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for port to accompany the bill (H.R. 3616) to auSEPTEMBER 23, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 26, 2020 b0518

Order 

Clerk

May 26, 2020

160028

RUTH BARRIGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 160028

COA: 339317

Wayne CC: 16-006535-NO

BON-TON DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,

d/b/a CARSON’S,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2019 judgment 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 323 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     November 12, 1997.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2159) making 
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel are you 

a Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this &ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this &ourt’s

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 8.6.&§1746, this

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

In re: TikTok Inc. Consumer

Privacy Litigation

1:20-cv-04699

Plaintiffs Bradley Fugot, Adam K. Storey, and Yevgeniy S. Androshchuk

Melissa L. Yeates

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP

280 King of Prussia Road

Radnor, PA 19087

202183 610-667-7706

myeates@ktmc.com

July 11, 2023

✔

✔

✔

✔

Melissa L. Yeates

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 305 Filed: 07/11/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13430
EXHIBIT 32.1: Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.1850 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of South Texas Oil Company (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB-A for the period  ending  December  31, 2005 as  filed  with the
Securities and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"),  I,
Murray N. Conradie, Chief  Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section   1350,  as  adopted
pursuant  to   Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and  that to the
best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

                         /s/ Murray N. Conradie
                         -------------------------------------------
                         MURRAY N. CONRADIE, Chief Executive Officer
				and Principal Financial Officer

Dated: April 16, 2007
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.**I, Richard J. Naughton, Chief Executive Officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc. certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Xenonics Holdings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the periods covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditorsand the audit committee of issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date: January 13, 2006 /s/ Richard J. Naughton     Name: Richard J. Naughton    Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### Jerry W. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.

No. 05-3004.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 29, 2004.

Before MICHEL, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Jerry W. Williams requests that the court accept his untimely petition for review and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On June 4, 2004 the Administrative Judge (AJ) issued an initial decision informing Williams that the AJ’s decision would become a final Merit Systems Protection Board decision on July 9, 2004. *Williams v. Department of Housing and Urban Devt.,*No. DA-0752-01-0446-A-1 (M.S.P.B. June 4, 2004). The AJ’s decision specified that any petition for review must be filed with this court within 60 days of the date the decision became final. Williams’ petition for review was received by the court on September 8, 2004, 61 days after the AJ’s decision became final.

Williams requests that the court grant him an extension of time or accept his untimely petition for review pursuant to the principles of equitable tolling set forth in *Irwin v. DVA*498 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). However, the 60-day period for filing a petition for review set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional” and cannot be waived. *Monzo v. Department of Transp., Federal Aviation Admin.,*735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984); *see also*Fed. R.App. P. 26(b) (an appellate court may not extend the time to file a notice of appeal or petition for review). Because Williams’ petition for review was received on September 8, 2004, 1 day late, the court must dismiss Williams’ petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Williams’ request that we accept his untimely petition for review is denied.

(2) Williams’ petition for review is dismissed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(4) All pending motions are moot.
Sales Compensation Plan Ammendment



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 MatrixOne Sales Compensation Plan 
 Amendment 
  

	Employee:	Janet Heppner-Jones, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Field Operations 


	Effective:	January 3, 2005 

  
 Compensation Plan Details: 
  

	 	•	 	Significant change in compensation and structure assumes a commitment through FY06. 

  

	 	•	 	Annual base salary of $275,000. 

  

	 	•	 	Annual guarantee of $50,000. 

  

	 	•	 	Monthly car allowance of $1,000. 

  

	 	•	 	Quarterly bonus opportunity of $20,000 

  
 As this plan is being implemented mid year and the employee’s former plan provided an annual bonus opportunity of $70,000 based on company
profitability, the quarterly bonus in each of Q3 and Q4 for FY05 will be $35,000. If the quarterly goal is not achieved in one quarter, the employee may recapture that quarter’s bonus in the subsequent quarter provided 100% of the year-to-date
goal is achieved by the end of the subsequent quarter. To provide an annual opportunity of $80,000, the employee will be eligible for a spot bonus of $10,000 based on achievement of the Q2 software revenue goal of $15,250,000. The FY05 worldwide
software license goal for Q1 was $13,000,000 and for Q3 is $17,000,000 and for Q4 is $18,250,000 (adjusted for Centor asset purchase). 
  

	 	•	 	Monthly incentive payments as opposed to quarterly incentive payments as provided in the current plan. 

  

	 	•	 	Revised PCR’s as follows: 

  

	 	•	 	Up to $63.5m, the PCR will be 0.1708% adjusted from 0.1721% due to the addition of the Centor. 

  

	 	•	 	Over $63.5m and up to $66.7m, the PCR is 2.8321% as compared to 1.6524% in the current plan. 

  

	 	•	 	Over $66.7m the PCR is 3.2052% as compared to 1.6524% in the current plan. 

  

	 	•	 	Quarterly PCR accelerator 

  
 If the quarterly software revenue goal is achieved, the amount over the quarterly goal will be paid at the higher of the designated PCR noted above or
1.15%. 
  
 Along with the details provided above, this Plan is governed by all
applicable terms and conditions described in the MatrixOne Sales Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2005. The Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, at any time, to amend, alter, or terminate this Plan. 
  

							
	PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT	 	 	 	 	 	 
				
	 Employee Signature:    /s/ Janet Heppner-Jones

	 	 	 	Date:	 	 1/25/05


				
	 Manager Signature:    /s/ Mark F. O’Connell

	 	 	 	Date:	 	 1/25/05


				
	 Human Resources Signature:    /s/ Maureen Giggey

	 	 	 	Date:	 	 1/25/05
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED   FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF ICG FUNDING, LLC FOR THE THREE  MONTHS  ENDED MARCH 31,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         6,568
<SECURITIES>                                   0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                    0<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,511
<PP&E>                                         0<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,116
<BONDS>                                        4,699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          128,525
<PREFERRED>                                    0<F1>
<COMMON>                                       0<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                     (313)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,027
<SALES>                                        0<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0<F1>
<CGS>                                          0<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (103)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,972
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0<F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0<F1>
<CHANGES>                                      0<F1>
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,972
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0<F1>



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen

United States Courthouse

Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE

August 15, 2022

To: Thomas G. Bruton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Illinois

Chicago, IL 60604-0000

No. 21-2517

LEGACY SPORTS BARBERSHOP LLC, et al., 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Originating Case Information:

District Court No: 1:20-cv-04149

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

District Judge Charles P. Kocoras

Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any. A 

certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to 

costs shall constitute the mandate. 

RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS: No record to be returned

form name: c7_Mandate (form ID: 135)

Case: 21-2517 Document: 00714051686 Filed: 08/15/2022 Pages: 1

Case: 1:20-cv-04149 Document #: 56 Filed: 08/15/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1971