alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Judge Widener did not participate in consideration of this

case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7371

FRED SHORES, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-00-264-1)

Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001

Before WIDENER* and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Shores, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Fred Shores, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Shores v. Beck, No. CA-00-264-1 (M.D.N.C.

Aug. 28, 2000). Shores’ motion to amend is granted. 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Iris Diaz, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 880]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered on or about March 12, 2012, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
EX-10.1


  Exhibit 10.1

  February 25, 2022

   

  Dear Angelique:

   

  We are delighted by the prospect of you joining CARS! We are confident that as part of our team, you will help us achieve our goals as a premier digital media company. We are pleased to offer you employment on the terms described below.

   

  In your role of Chief Legal Officer, you will report to Alex Vetter, Chief Executive Officer. Your first day will be April 4, 2022. Your annualized base compensation in this exempt position, as agreed, will be $375,000 and you will be eligible to participate in CARS Short-Term Incentive Plan (“STIP”) which enables you to earn an annual cash performance bonus calculated at a target of 50% of your base salary.

   

  You are eligible to participate in our comprehensive benefits package which includes 23 days paid time off annually, prorated based on start date, and will be nominated to participate in CARS’ Change of Control/Severance program, which requires approval from the board

   

  We are also recommending you for an annual grant of CARS Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”). The target value of this award on the date of grant will be $656,250 – or 175% of your base salary. The number of RSUs you receive will be rounded to the nearest whole share based on the closing price of CARS stock on the grant date. These grants are not official until they are formally authorized by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors in its sole discretion and in accordance with our normal grant process, which is typically quarterly.

   

  Please note that the incentive plans may be amended or terminated at any time and for any reason. Also, your final award values are based on the Company’s and your performance and applicable guidelines, which may be changed at any time. The terms of any RSUs granted to you will be governed only by the applicable plan document and award agreement thereunder.

   

  After acceptance of this offer and clearance of the background check, you will receive an email from our onboarding website, Greenhouse Onboarding containing a link with your log-in credentials. This site will guide you through the process of completing your tasks prior to your first day, as well as give you the opportunity to learn more about our business. Upon receipt of your credentials, please log-in and complete your task list. Within the task list, are instructions on where to upload your signed Acceptance Letter and Restrictive Covenant Agreement. Please complete this at your earliest opportunity.

   

  Your initial new hire orientation is scheduled for April 4, 2022, at 9:00am and will include a detailed review of our benefits and many other employee programs. Please be sure to upload your I-9 documentation to Greenhouse Onboarding by your first day.

   

  Angelique, we recognize that we will achieve success only by attracting and retaining the finest talent available. We are confident that you will find your work with CARS personally and professionally rewarding and that you will play a vital role in contributing to our future success.

   

  Congratulations and welcome,

   

  D.V. Williams
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerris Leon MARKHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4441.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 25, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 26, 2006.

*256Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Jr., First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Jerris Leon Markham pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2000). Markham was sentenced to thirty-two months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

Markham contends that his predicate state conviction did not satisfy § 922(g)(1) as a matter of law. He reasons that, under North Carolina law, his maximum sentence was twelve months because no aggravating factors were admitted to or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. *See North Carolina v. Allen,*359 N.C. 425, 615 S.E.2d 256, 265 (2005) (holding, after *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), statutory maximum is the maximum that a particular defendant can face in light of his criminal history and the facts found by a jury or admitted by defendant). However, Markham concedes that his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Harp,*406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 297, 163 L.Ed.2d 259 (2005), which holds that *United States v. Jones,*195 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 1999), is still viable after *Blakely*and *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and reaffirms that a prior North Carolina conviction satisfies § 922(g)(1) if any defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence in excess of one year. Thus, because it is undisputed that a sentence of over twelve months could be imposed on a defendant convicted of felony possession of a stolen automobile in North Carolina, Markham’s prior conviction was properly considered a predicate felony under § 922(g)(1).

Accordingly, we affirm Markham’s conviction and sentence. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Document

Exhibit 10.1

						
	   
	

Piper Sandler Companies
800 Nicollet Mall, Suite 900, Minneapolis, MN  55402-7020
612 303-6000  |  800 333-6000  |  Fax: 612 303-1772





April 18, 2022 


Brian R. Sterling 


Dear Brian, 


Reference is made to the Transition Services Agreement, dated December 31, 2020, as amended on January 10, 2022 (the "Transition Services Agreement"), pursuant to which you have been acting in an advisory capacity to transition client engagements following your employment with Piper Sandler & Co. (the "Company"). Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Offer Letter. 


In recognition that the final Covered Transaction has closed, the Company and you hereby agree to terminate the Transition Services Agreement effective April 29, 2022, upon which date your services under the Termination Services Agreement shall cease. 


In addition, in accordance with Section 2 of the Transition Services Agreement, the Company and you hereby mutually agree upon a payment to you for your services under the Transition Services Agreement of $2,000,000, which has been determined based upon the fees received by the Company with respect to the Covered Transaction. This fee will be paid to you within five business days of the date hereof. 


Please confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth our agreement by signing and returning this letter to Piper Sandler. 


Very truly yours, 


PIPER SANDLER & CO. 
By: /s/ Chad R. Abraham
Name: Chad R. Abraham 
Title: Chairman and CEO


Accepted and agreed:
By: /s/ Brian R. Sterling
Name: Brian R. Sterling
Date: April 18, 2022
* 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

October 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51317

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO V. BALTAZAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-238-2

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto V. Baltazar appeals from the judgment revoking his

supervised release. This court must examine the basis of its

jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby,

813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Article III, § 2, of the

Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases

and controversies. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 

The case-or-controversy requirement demands that “some concrete

and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or
No. 04-51317

-2-

parole -- some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction -- must

exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id.

Baltazar has served the sentence that was imposed upon the

revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking

Baltazar’s term of supervised release imposed no further term of

supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy

for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
##### 



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
CHS INC.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
  1. The definition of Change of Control in Section 2.1 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:
  2. The definition of Total Disability in Section 2.1 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:
  3. Article V of the Plan is amended to read as follows:
 Time and Form of Participants Benefit
 Death Benefit
 Disability




---



##### 



Change of Control
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CHS Inc.
 CHS INC.By
    /s/ John D JohnsonIts
    President & CEO
No. 853.

#### Shick *v.*Goodman, Trustee.

March 16, 1942.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Postal Service

## Board Votes To Close June 2, 2009, Meeting

At its closed session meeting on May 5, 2009, the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting to be held on June 2, 2009, in Washington, DC via teleconference. The Board determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

## Items Considered

1. Strategic Issues.

2. Financial Matters.

3. Pricing.

4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.

5. Governors' Executive Session—discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance.

## General Counsel Certification

The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting is properly closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

## Contact Person for More Information

Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-13065 Filed 6-1-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         309,233
<SECURITIES>                                   2,876,528
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    20,103,905
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               20,413,138
<PP&E>                                         1,138,048
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (390,833)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 25,634,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22,266,522
<BONDS>                                        1,189,295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,300,010
<COMMON>                                       14,324
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,114,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   25,634,290
<SALES>                                        3,748,223
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,114,482
<CGS>                                          721,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,637,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             445,522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                512,054
<INCOME-TAX>                                   163,469
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            348,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   512,054
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .10
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2949 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2949

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide authority 
  for increased fiscal year 2010 payments for temporary assistance to 
  United States citizens returned from foreign countries, to provide 
  necessary funding to avoid shortfalls in the Medicare cost-sharing 
 program for low-income qualifying individuals, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Aid to American Survivors 
of the Haiti Earthquake Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE PAYMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR 
              TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS RETURNED 
              FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

    Section 1113(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1313(d)) is 
amended by striking ``September, 30, 2003'' and all that follows and 
inserting ``September 30, 2009, except that, in the case of fiscal year 
2010, the total amount of such assistance provided during that fiscal 
year shall not exceed $25,000,000.''.

SEC. 3. QI PROGRAM FUNDING.

    Section 1933(g)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-
3(g)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (M), by striking ``$412,500,000'' and 
        inserting ``$462,500,000''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (N), by striking ``$150,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$165,000,000''.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF MEDICAID IMPROVEMENT FUND.

    Section 1941(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396w-
1(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting 
``$10,000,000''.

            Passed the Senate January 25, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2949

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide authority 
  for increased fiscal year 2010 payments for temporary assistance to 
  United States citizens returned from foreign countries, to provide 
  necessary funding to avoid shortfalls in the Medicare cost-sharing 
 program for low-income qualifying individuals, and for other purposes.
```
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

           AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC. (Delaware)

                  API Heat Transfer Inc. (New York)
                     API Schmidt-Bretten Beteiligungs GmbH (Germany)
                        API Schmidt-Bretten Verwaltung GmbH (Germany)
                        Schmidt-Bretten GmbH & Co. KG (Germany)
                           Schmidt-Bretten Nederland B.V. (Netherlands)

                  API Motion Inc. (New York)
                     API Gettys Inc. (Wisconsin)
                     API Harowe (St. Kitts) Ltd.
                     API Delevan Inc. (New York)
                     API Elmo AB (Sweden)
                     API Portescap (Switzerland)
                        API Portescap International (Switzerland)
                           API Portescap Deutschland GmbH (Germany)
                           API Portescap Scandinavia AB (Sweden)
                           API Portescap Polska Sp.zo.o (Poland)
                           API Portescap France SA (France)
                           API Portescap Japan Ltd. (Japan)
                           API Positran Limited (England)
                             API Portescap (UK) Limited  (England)


Note:    API-FS Corporation, API of Canada Inc., American Precision Industries
         Inc. (UK) Ltd., API Development Corporation and Portescap U.S. Inc. are
         omitted because in the aggregate they do not constitute a "significant
         subsidiary". The less than 50% ownership interests in joint ventures
         Schmidt-Bretten France S.A.R.L. (France), Schmidt-Bretten Espana S.L.
         (Spain) and Schmidt-Bretten Romania S.R.L. (Romania) are also excluded
         since they do not constitute a "significant subsidiary".
         Schmidt-Bretten GmbH & Co. KG is a partnership owned by API
         Schmidt-Bretten Beteiligungs GmbH (99.9%) and API Schmidt-Bretten
         Verwaltung GmbH (.1%).






                                                                              63
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2719 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on diphenyl (2,4,6- 

trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on diphenyl 

(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DIPHENYL (2,4,6-TRIMETHYLBENZOYL) 

4 PHOSPHINE OXIDE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.39 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

9 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2719 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Tyrone HURT, Appellant v. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et al., Appellees.

No. 06-5248.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 30, 2006.

Tyrone Hurt, Washington, DC, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 21, 2006, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint *sua sponte*under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), because the allegations lack an arguable basis either in law or fact. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); *Crisafi v. Holland,*655 F.2d 1305 (D.C.Cir.1981).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
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 connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of American Israeli
Paper Mills Limited (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Yaki Yerushalmi, Active Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
sec. 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, as amended; and

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

Date: September 29, 2005                     /s/ Avi Brener
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Avi Brener
                                             Chief Executive Officer