alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Omar Small, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 796]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J„), rendered April 27, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and petit larceny, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in determining that there was an independent source for the victim’s in-court identification of the defendant as her assailant. An in-court identification of a defendant by an eyewitness is proper, notwithstanding unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedures, where it is based upon the eyewitness’s independent observation of the defendant *(see People v Paris,*2 AD3d 881 [2003]; *People v Cotto,*268 AD2d 441 [2000]; *People v Brown,*187 AD2d 662, 663 [1992]). The victim testified that she had a *1107clear view of her assailant’s face at very close range, under well-lit conditions, throughout the length of the commission of the crime and, as a result, she was able to give the police a description of the individual, which included details of his facial features, height, weight, and clothing *(see People v*Colon, 32 AD3d 791 [2006]; *People v Brown,*293 AD2d 686 [2002]; *People v Price,*256 AD2d 596 [1998]; *People v Quinitchett,*210 AD2d 438, 439 [1994]; *People v Steward,*206 AD2d 397, 398 [1994]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly determined that there was an independent source for the identification *(see People v Paris,*2 AD3d 881 [2003]; *People v Brown,*187 AD2d 662 [1992]), and properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. Eng. P.J., Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of STONECRAFT LLC, Debtor, *657John Slagter, Appellant, v. Stonecraft, LLC, Appellee.

No. 06-60798.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2007.

John Slagter, pro se.

William Jefferson Little, Jr., Lentz & Little, Jackson, MS, for Appellee.

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this bankruptcy appeal, only one significant issue is presented: whether the appellant, John Slagter, impliedly consented to the bankruptcy court rendering final judgment in an adversary proceeding thereby treating this non-core proceeding as though it were a core proceeding. For the following reasons we answer this question in the affirmative.

1. In June 2004, after the court denied appellant’s motion for abstention in which he claimed the right to de novo review of the bankruptcy court findings, appellant, without any reservation of rights, filed a counterclaim seeking an order awarding him ownership of the patent at issue.

2. In November 2004, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a final adjudication by the bankruptcy court.

3. In January 2005, trial on the adversary proceeding was held. Appellant raised no argument in pretrial briefing or at trial that the case should proceed as a non-core matter.

4. After the bankruptcy court rendered judgment awarding the patent to appellee, appellant filed no objection to the bankruptcy court findings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) which provides for de novo district court review of a bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. *658Instead, appellant lodged his appeal to the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), the section applicable to appeals from final judgments of the bankruptcy court.

The above action and inaction of the appellant adequately demonstrates that he consented to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to decide this case as a core proceeding. *See McFarland v. Leyh (In the Matter of Texas Gen’l Petroleum Corp.),*52 F.3d 1330, 1337 (5th Cir.1995).

Appellant also argues that the bankruptcy court and the district court erred in denying his motion to abstain. We need not decide this issue because we agree with the district court that this case is equitably moot in light of: (1) the fact that appellant failed to obtain a stay, (2) the plan has been substantially consummated, and (3) the requested relief would affect parties not before the court. *See Manges v. Seattle-First Nat’l Bank (In the Matter of Manges),*29 F.3d 1034, 1039 (5th Cir. 1994).

For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 4.3


 


CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION OF THE


CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION OF


SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK


OF


HC2 HOLDINGS, INC.


 


It is hereby certified that:







1.            The name of the corporation is HC2 Holdings, Inc. (the “Corporation”).







2.            The Certificate of Designation of Series A Convertible Participating Preferred Stock of the Corporation, which was filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on May 29, 2014 (the “Certificate of Designation”), is hereby corrected.







3.            The inaccuracy to be corrected in the Certificate of Designation is as follows:







Certain provisions contained in Section 9(a) and Section 10(pp) of the Certificate of Designation erroneously failed to include a reference to the Corporation or to utilize defined terms.







4.            The portion of the instrument in corrected form is as follows:







Clause (B) of the proviso of Section 9(a) of the Certificate of Designation is hereby corrected in its entirety to read as follows:







(B) 100% of the Indebtedness of the Company, the Company’s wholly-owned and, after taking into account the Company’s ownership percentage therein, Non-Wholly Owned Subsidiaries (as well as the liquidation preference of any preferred security ranking senior to the Company’s investment in such entities) shall be taken into account for purposes of determining Indebtedness but not taken into account (i.e., added back) for purposes of determining Net Asset Value, and







The provisos of Section 10(pp) of the Certificate of Designation are hereby corrected in their entirety to read as follows:







provided that for such purposes, (i) the derivative attributable to the conversion feature in any series of preferred stock will not be considered a liability and (ii) the Accrued Value (as well as any accrued Dividends not yet added to the Accrued Value) of the Preferred Shares and the preference amount (including the accrued value and all accrued but unpaid dividends thereon not included in the accrued value) of any other Senior Securities or Parity Securities will be considered Indebtedness of the Company; provided, further that, solely for purposes of determining the Debt/NAV Ratio, the Indebtedness of the Company, the Company’s wholly-owned and, after taking into account the Company’s ownership percentage therein, Non-Wholly Owned Subsidiaries (as well as the liquidation preference of any preferred security ranking senior to the Company’s investment) shall be taken into account for purposes of determining “Debt” (i.e., the numerator) but not taken into account (i.e., added back) for purposes of determining Net Asset Value (i.e., the denominator).







[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]


 











	
Dated:

	
August 5

	
, 2015










	 	
HC2 HOLDINGS, INC.


	 	 	 
	 	
By:

	
/s/ Keith Hladek


	 		
Name: Keith Hladek


		 	
Title:   Chief Operating Officer





 



[Signature Page to Series A Certificate of Correction]
##### 



Exhibit 12
 
 First Quarter2008
    
    
    2007Computation of EarningsIncome (loss) before income taxes
    
    $
    (6,420
    )
    
    $
    7,650Add:Minority interest
    
    
    (339
    )
    
    
    681Interest expense
    
    
    9,820
    
    
    
    11,450Amortization of debt
premium/discount and expenses
    
    
    615
    
    
    
    768Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    308
    
    
    
    305Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    3,984
    
    
    $
    20,854Computation of Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    9,820
    
    
    $
    11,450Capitalized interest
    
    
    158
    
    
    
    273Amortization of debt premium/discount and expenses
    
    
    615
    
    
    
    768Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    308
    
    
    
    305Fixed charges
    
    $
    10,901
    
    
    $
    12,796Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    0.37
    
    
    
    1.63
#### Taddessee Hagos BERAKI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-2237.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2006.

Decided: June 14, 2006.

Linette Tobin, Mount Ranier, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rhonda M. Dent, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*260PER CURIAM:

Taddessee Hagos Beraki, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Beraki fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Beraki cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. *Chen v. INS,*195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); *INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny Beraki’s motion to allow attachments to his brief and 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.*
**Exhibit
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      condition with the Amendment No. 2 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex
      Pharmaceuticals Limited (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended July 31,
      2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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






By
                /s/ George G. Usher


George
      G.
      Usher,


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      21,
      2006




This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
      “Exchange Act”). This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
      the
      Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
      it
      by reference.




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


---
EXHIBIT 11

TELLABS, INC.

COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

In millions, except per share amounts



|                                                                     |  |               |       |          |   |      
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------- | ----- | -------- | - | -----
|                                                                     |  | First Quarter
|                                                                     |  | 4/3/09        |       | 03/28/08
|Numerator:                                                           |  |               |       |          |   |      
|Net earnings                                                         |  | $             | 6.5   |          | $ | 16.6 
|                                                                     |  |               |       |          |   |      
|                                                                     |  |              
|Denominator:                                                         |  |               |       |          |   |      
|                                                                     |  |              
|Denominator for basic earnings per share -                           |  |               |       |          |   |      
|Weighted average shares outstanding                                  |  |               | 395.8 |          |   | 407.9
|                                                                     |  |              
|Effect of dilutive securities:                                       |  |               |       |          |   |      
|                                                                     |  |              
|Stock options and awards                                             |  |               | 0.8   |          |   | 1.0  
|                                                                     |  |               |       |          |   |      
|Denominator for diluted earnings per share -                         |  |               |       |          |   |      
|Adjusted weighted average shares outstanding and assumed conversions |  |               | 396.6 |          |   | 408.9
|                                                                     |  |               |       |          |   |      
|                                                                     |  |              
|Net earnings per share  basic                                       |  | $             | 0.02  |          | $ | 0.04 
|                                                                     |  |               |       |          |   |      
|Net earnings per share  diluted                                     |  | $             | 0.02  |          | $ | 0.04 
|                                                                     |  |               |       |          |   |      

The number of anti-dilutive securities excluded from the weighted average shares outstanding
computation was 32.3 million in the first quarter of 2009 and 32.7 million in the first quarter of 2008.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                     UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
statement of operations and changes in member's equity, the statement of cash
flows, and the balance sheet for the Form 10-Q dated March 31, 2000, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                   0000317187
<NAME>                                  PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                               PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                     4,319
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     794
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,166
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                      2,935
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                9,214
<COMMON>                                      1,476
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      (599)<F1>
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             512
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                1,389
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            47
<PREFERRED>                                      50
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                          3,337
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              279
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                         0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  116
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   357
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                         0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                  0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                3,639
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                 9,214
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                     1,127
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             81
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      859
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      940
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         187
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               11
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  198
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         61
<NET-INCOME>                                    137
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       6
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   131
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          106
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00


<FN>
Net of $632 million of treasury stock
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Pergram, 2016-Ohio-3398.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2015-12-215 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 6/13/2016 

 : 

TAMMY MICHELLE PERGRAM, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2014-07-1159 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee 

Scott N. Blauvelt, 315 South Monument Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendantappellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Tammy Pergram, has filed a brief with this 

court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) 
Butler CA2015-12-215 

 - 2 - 

indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any 

errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of 

error may be predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the 

appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record 

independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and 

without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw 

as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that 

a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

S. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6593

JERRY ALLEN HOLLOWAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-27-7) Submitted: August 17, 1999 Decided: August 31, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Jerry Allen Holloway, Appellant Pro Se. Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Allen Holloway seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Holloway v. Angelone , No. CA-99-27-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 9, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED