alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lashan D. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7501.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 18, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Lashan D. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Brian James Samuels, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lashan D. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Case 2:11-mj-04022-CCC Document 17 Filed 02/23/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 72
U.S. Department ofJustice

(Jotted States Attorney

District ojtVew Jersey

070 BnxscI Sweet. State 700 (973/645-2700

NeworIcNJ 07102

March 20. 2012

VIA EMAIL

Honorable Jose L. Linares

United States District Judge

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & US, Courthouse

50 Walnut Street

Newark, NJ 07101

Re: United States v. Andrew Cox, Cr. No. 11-99 (JLL)

Dear Judge Linares:

Please accept this letter response to Defendant Andrew Cox’s pro se motion for release

pending appeal before entry ofjudgment of conviction (Docket No. 78). As indicated in the

defendant’s motion, he is represented by counsel and has opted against counsel’s advice to file

the instant motion pro se. 5cc l)ocket No, 78 at 1 (1 am submitting this motion pro se because

my very competent counsel and I (reasonable minds) disagree. . . “) (emphasis added).

Pursuant to vell-settied law in the Third Circuit, a defendant is not entitled to hybrid

representation and district courts may properly exercise their discretion to disregard pro se filings

by represented defendants 5gg United States v D’Amano, No 07-4134, 268 fed Appx 179

(3d Cir. 2008) (also citing McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984) (finding that there is

no constitutional right to hybrid representation)).

Accordingly, the government respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the defendant’s

pro se motion for release. We thank the Court for its consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. FISHMAN

cc: Michael Orozco

SO ORDERED.

C - 3

HON 9CEt.LINARES, U.S.D.J. bATk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                        3,542,257
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                14,036,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                    467,492
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             19,945,893
<PP&E>                                        9,569,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                4,036,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               42,028,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         9,302,018
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         57,517
<OTHER-SE>                                   32,512,156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 42,028,263
<SALES>                                      56,473,553
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             56,473,553
<CGS>                                        20,515,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                20,515,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             32,505,410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               46,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               3,531,586
<INCOME-TAX>                                  1,475,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           2,056,586
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  2,056,586
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.35



</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three
months ended June 30, 2008 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darin G. Holderness, Chief Financial
Officer of Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC, the general partner of Eagle Rock
Energy GP, L.P., the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. (the
“Partnership”), hereby certify, 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 results of operations of the
Partnership.





Date:
      August 8, 2008
            /s/  
       Darin G. Holderness
              Darin
      G. Holderness
              Senior
      Vice President and
              Chief
      Financial Officer of Eagle Rock
              Energy
      G&P, LLC, General Partner of Eagle Rock
              Energy
      GP, L.P., General Partner of Eagle Rock
              Energy
      Partners, L.P.
#### BLANC v. SMITH.

No. 220 Civil.

District Court, S. D. Iowa, Central Division.

Jan. 7, 1943.

Gordon F. Hook, of Wilkinson, Huxley,. Byron & Knight, of Chicago, 111., and Ste*183phen & Buckingham, of Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner.

F. Creed Corey, of Des Moines, Iowa, for defendant.

DEWEY, District Judge.

The above entitled action came on for hearing in open court at Des Moines, Iowa, on the 2nd day of January, 1943, on objections filed by the defendant to interrogatories propounded to him by the plaintiff.

The objections to the interrogatories are, in effect: 1st, that they ask for an opinion on the construction of claims of the patent in suit; 2nd, that they call for legal conclusions; and 3d, that the requests for information regarding the construction of a device with certain elements do not call for elements covered by plaintiff’s claims and are therefore immaterial.

The request for the interrogatories was made under the provisions of Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

Upon careful examination I find that Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 ask for fact questions as distinguished from opinions or constructions of claims, and these objections are therefore overruled.

Interrogatories Nos. 3, 6, 9 and 12 are not requests for the answers of any fact, but request affirmative action on the part of the defendant which does not seem to be within the purview of said Rule No. 33, and the objections to these interrogatories are sustained.

Interrogatories Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 call for information which involves the giving of opinions as distinguished from facts and the objections to each of said interrogatories should be sustained.

The objection to the interrogatories on the ground that they do not contain the elements of the claims of plaintiff’s patent will have to be overruled as no copy of the patent is before the court and the burden is upon the party filing the objections to sustain his reasons why the interrogatories should not be answered. Defendant is therefore given 10 days to answer the interrogatories to which the objections have not by this ruling been sustained.

The Clerk will therefore enter the following order;

The above entitled action having come on for hearing in open court on objections filed by the defendant to certain interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff to him and the same being submitted;

It is ordered that such objections be sustained as to Interrogatories 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; and overruled as to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11.

The defendant is given 10 days to answer the interrogatories to which the objections have not been sustained. Both parties except.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-93051, Form S-3/A No. 333-81263, Form S-3 No. 333-47512, Form
S-3DPOS No. 333-81263, and Form S-8 Nos. 333-47610, 333-84567, 333-48867,
333-31297, 333-23095, 333-06081, 33-62543, 33-80594, 33-53432, 33-45469,
33-41945, 33-25230, 33-19851 and 33-16625) pertaining to the 1995 Management
Stock Option Plan, the 1996 Non-Employees Directors' Stock Option Plan, the 1996
Equity Incentive Plan, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Komag Incorporated
Deferred Compensation Plan, the Komag, Incorporated Restated 1987 Stock Option
Plan, the Komag Material Technology, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan, the Komag,
Incorporated Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Komag, Incorporated Restated 1987
Stock Option Plan, the Komag, Incorporated 1988 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
the Dastek, Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan, and the 1997 Supplemental Stock Option
Plan, of our report dated January 29, 2001, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Komag, Incorporated for each of the two
years in the period ended December 31, 2000 included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 30, 2001.

                                                               Ernst & Young LLP



San Jose, California
March 21, 2002
#### The Giglio *v.*The Britannia.

*(District Court, S. D. New York.*

June 7, 1887.)

1. Carrier—Damage to Cargo—Bill oe Lading—“Breakage or Leakage”— Liability.

The steam-ship B. delivered in New York certain cases of olive oil. Some were entirely empty, and some partly empty, on delivery. The bill of lading exempted the carrier from responsibility for “breakage or leakage. ” Jt appeared by the evidence that the leaks were caused by some persons tampering with the cases while in the carrier's custody. *Held,*that for such violence to the cases the carrier was responsible. The presumptions are against reasonable care on the part of the ship when such a cause of loss is proved.

In Admiralty.

*D. T.*McMahon, for libelant,

*Benedict, Taft & Benedict,*for claimants.

Brown, J.

The libelant claims damages for the injury and loss sustained in the transportation of some olive oil from Genoa to New York, in November, 1884. There were 49 wooden boxes or cases, containing each four hermetically sealed cans of oil. On delivery, some of the cans were wholly empty, some partly empty, and some of the boxes so soaked with oil as to be unmerchantable. The bill of lading exempted the carrier from responsibility for “breakage or leakage.” The defense would prevail, therefore, unless it appeared that the loss arose through some Avant of care or some negligence on the part of the carrier. The burden of proving this is upon the libelant. *The Vaderland,*18 Fed. Rep. 733, 739-741, and cases cited; *The Invincible,*1 Low. Dec. 225; *Richards*v. *Hansen,*1 Fed. Rep. 54; *The Sabioncello,*7 Ben. 358.

The libelant had long been accustomed to import such oil from the same region in Italy, and from the same consignors. It was put up in the same manner as these cases, and no similar loss or injury had before occurred. The supplementary proof shows that the cases were shipped in good condition. In the present case the evidence leaves no doubt that the leak was caused by some persons tampering with the cases for the purpose of extracting oil, while the cases were in the carrier’s custody, and that the loss arose in part, probably, from the abstraction of oil, and in part from leakage, through nail holes made in the cases for the purpose of extracting, oil. For such violence done to the cases, and to the cans, the earner is responsible. There is nothing in the bill of lading that excepts larceny, or such a cause of loss; and the presumptions are also against reasonable care on the part of the ship when such a cause of loss is proimd.

Decree for the libelant, but, inasmuch as upon the original hearing of the cause the libqlant’s proofs weie insufficient, the decree must be without costs to either party.

1

 Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of tbe New York bar.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Randolph Gress, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of
Innophos Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: November 4, 2009



/S/ RANDOLPH GRESSRandolph Gress Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report.



40
----

----

|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                              |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/      Daniel L. Baxter                                         |   |   |   |
| Daniel      L. BaxterChief      Executive OfficerMay      8, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1259 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1259

 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to reauthorize the 
            Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 1, 2019

Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Warner, Mr. Coons, Mr. Kaine, 
and Mr. Van Hollen) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
     and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to reauthorize the 
            Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

    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 ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 (54 
U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 105-312) is amended by striking ``2019'' 
and inserting ``2025''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 15**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 0001145549-04-001326), pertaining to securities offered under the2002 Employee Stock Option Plan, 2004 Employee Stock Option Plan and 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of GigaMedia Limited of our report dated May 26, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of GigaMedia Limited and itssubsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

By: /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers 

Taipei, Taiwan, 

Republic of China 

June 30, 2005
@article{1211931,
  author = {Manuel Castellanos Beltran and Adam Sirois and Logan Howe and David Olaya and John Biesecker and Samuel P. Benz and Pete Hopkins},
  title = {Coherence-limited digital control of a superconducting qubit using a Josephson pulse generator at 3 K},
  year = {2023},
  number = {122},
  month = {2023-05-08 04:05:00},
  publisher = {Applied Physics Letters},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936240},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0147692},
  language = {en},
}
907 A.2d 1009

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RALPH REEVEY, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

September 8, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, limited solely to the sentencing issue raised by defendant, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light *oi State v. Natale,*184 *N.J.*458, 878 A.2d 724 (2005).
EX-10.37



 Exhibit 10.37 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), is entered into as of the 14th day of
December 2012 (the “Effective Date”) by and between HAROLD F. ZAGUNIS (the “Executive”) and REDWOOD TRUST, INC., a Maryland Corporation (the “Company”). 

WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company have entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of March 31,
2009 (as subsequently amended as of February 24, 2011 and May 17, 2012, the “Employment Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company desire to enter into this Agreement for purposes of amending the Employment Agreement as
set forth herein; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy which is hereby
acknowledged, the Executive and the Company hereby agree that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows effective upon the Effective Date: 
 (1) Section 7(c) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows: 
 “Release Agreement.  As a condition of receiving any of the payments and benefits set forth in this Section 7, the Executive shall be required to execute a mutual release
agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C or Exhibit D, as appropriate, and such release agreement must have become effective in accordance with its terms within 75 days following the termination date. The Company, in its sole discretion,
may modify the term of the required release agreement to comply with applicable state law and may incorporate the required release agreement into a termination agreement or other agreement with the Executive.” 

Except as hereby specifically amended or modified, the terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended by this Agreement, shall remain in
full force and effect. This Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in two counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. This Agreement shall be governed in
all respects by the laws of the State of California (without regard to conflict of law principles). 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officer, and the Executive has executed this Agreement, as of the date first above written. 

 

									
		 		 	REDWOOD TRUST, INC.	 	
					
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Martin S. Hughes
	 	
		 		 		 	Name: Martin S. Hughes	 	
		 		 		 	Title: Chief Executive Officer	 	
				
		 		 	HAROLD F. ZAGUNIS	 	
					
		 		 		 	 /s/ Harold F. Zagunis
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1196 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1196

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2019

           Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, as the ``Fire Captain 
                   Cory Barr Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FIRE CAPTAIN CORY BARR POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Fire Captain Cory Barr Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Fire 
Captain Cory Barr Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate July 30, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```