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

No. 12-7650.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 19, 2012.

Michael Charles Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Michael Charles Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 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. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, *231we 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.*
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 10419 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:05

- cr - 00380

- RWS

- ECS

- 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ISRAEL PINEDA, a.k.a. Becerro, a.k.a. Borrego, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (December 24, 2014) Before JORDAN , JILL PRYOR an d BLACK , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-10419 Date Filed: 12/24/2014 Page: 1 of 22 Mary Erickson, appointed counsel for Israel Pineda in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

cou nsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Pineda’s convictions and
sentences are AFFIRMED

. However, we sua sponte REMAND for the limited purpose of correcting a scrivener’s error in Count 2 of the written judgment. The statute of conviction should read 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A), (h), rather than solely 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A).

Case: 14-10419 Date Filed: 12/24/2014 Page: 2 of 2
**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 10-K/A of Airspan Networks, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric Stonestrom,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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 Company.
  ****Date: April
      27, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Eric
  StonestromEric StonestromChief Executive
  Officer
Case 3:11-mj-02525-DEA   Document 15   Filed 09/23/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 33

Case 3:11-mj-02525-DEA   Document 15   Filed 09/23/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 34
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A1293. WALKER v. RAYMER et al.

On May 21, 2014, this Court issued an order reinstating this appeal to this

Court from the Supreme Court of Georgia, and directing Appellant to file a brief

within 20 days from the date of the order. Appellant’s brief was due on June 10, 2014.

As of the date of this order, Appellant has not filed a brief as ordered by this

Court, and no motion for extension for good cause has been filed. Therefore, this

appeal is DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/25/2014

July 25, 2014
Case 2:11-cv-01607-CCC-JAD Document 14 Filed 05/15/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 65
Case 2:11-cv-01607-CCC-JAD Document 14 Filed 05/15/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 66
Case 2:11-cv-01607-CCC-JAD Document 14 Filed 05/15/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 67
Case 2:11-cv-01607-CCC-JAD Document 14 Filed 05/15/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 68
Case 2:11-cv-01607-CCC-JAD Document 14 Filed 05/15/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 69
Case 2:11-cv-01607-CCC-JAD Document 14 Filed 05/15/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 70
Case 2:11-cv-01607-CCC-JAD Document 14 Filed 05/15/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 71
30. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment

Duration of unemployment

Total Full-time workers

Thousands of persons Percent distribution Thousands of persons Percent distribution

2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007

 Total, 16 years and over ..................................... 7,001 7,078 100.0 100.0 5,675 5,789 100.0 100.0

Less than 5 weeks ................................................ 2,614 2,542 37.3 35.9 1,950 1,896 34.4 32.8

5 to 14 weeks ....................................................... 2,121 2,232 30.3 31.5 1,719 1,843 30.3 31.8

 5 to 10 weeks ..................................................... 1,460 1,529 20.9 21.6 1,157 1,236 20.4 21.4

 11 to 14 weeks ................................................... 661 703 9.4 9.9 562 606 9.9 10.5

15 weeks and over ............................................... 2,266 2,303 32.4 32.5 2,005 2,050 35.3 35.4

 15 to 26 weeks ................................................... 1,031 1,061 14.7 15.0 907 931 16.0 16.1

 27 weeks and over ............................................. 1,235 1,243 17.6 17.6 1,098 1,119 19.3 19.3

 27 to 51 weeks ................................................. 535 539 7.6 7.6 485 486 8.6 8.4

 52 weeks and over ........................................... 700 704 10.0 9.9 613 633 10.8 10.9

Average (mean) duration, in weeks ...................... 16.8 16.8 – – 18.0 18.1 – –

Median duration, in weeks .................................... 8.3 8.5 – – 9.2 9.4 – –

 NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication

criteria.

245
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 30 DB 2020 (No. 30 RST 2020)

:

GREGORY BRIAN PECCA, SR. : Attorney Registration No. 88997

: 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

 FROM RETIRED STATUS : (Out of State)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6

th day of May, 2020, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated April 24, 2020, is approved and it is ORDERED that

Gregory Brian Pecca, Sr., who has been on Retired Status, has never been suspended 

or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.
#### Jahid Roni et al., Plaintiffs, v Abdur Rahim, Defendant, and United Bank of Kuwait, PLC, Appellant, and Baitul Jannah Zame Masjid and Muslim Community Center, Inc., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[854 NYS2d 486]

*851The infant plaintiff, by his father, commenced this action after he allegedly was injured by the ingestion of lead paint in an apartment located in a building “owned” by the defendant United Bank of Kuwait, PLC (hereinafter the Bank), and leased to the defendant Baitul Jannah Zame Masjid and Muslim Community Center, Inc. (hereinafter the Baitul Center) *(see Roni v Rahim,*49 AD3d 851 [2008] [decided herewith]). The Bank, inter alia, moved for summary judgment on its cross claim for contractual indemnification against the Baitul Center based upon the contractual indemnification clause of the lease. However, the Bank failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the indemnification provisions shifted all responsibility for third-party claims to the Baitul Center regardless of the Bank’s own negligence. In such an instance, the indemnification provision would be unenforceable *(see*General Obligations Law § 5-321; *Wolfe v Long Is. Power Auth.,*34 AD3d 575 [2006]; *Breakaway Farm, Ltd. v Ward,*15 AD3d 517 [2005]; *see also*Multiple Dwelling Law § 78).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the Bank’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cross claim for contractual indemnification against the Baitul Center *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Covello and Carni, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

d0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

137257(27) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137257 

 COA: 283574 

Ottawa CC: 2007-031647-AR 

BRIAN SCOTT OETMAN, 58th DC: GH-07-000865-SD 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 18, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

 KELLY, C.J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would reverse 

the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,492
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,826
<INVENTORY>                                      1,186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,134
<PP&E>                                           3,571
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,124
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,310
<BONDS>                                          5,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,711
<SALES>                                          4,688
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,414
<CGS>                                            4,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,588
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 725
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,532)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,532)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.51)
        

</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1185 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow any deduction 

for punitive damages, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow 

any deduction for punitive damages, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Tax Write-offs for 

5 Corporate Wrongdoers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR PUNITIVE 

7 DAMAGES. 

8 (a) DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 162(g) of the Inter10 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1185 IS

1 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and 

2 (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘If’’ and inserting: 

4 ‘‘(1) TREBLE DAMAGES.—If’’; and 

5 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(2) PUNITIVE DAMAGES.—No deduction shall 

8 be allowed under this chapter for any amount paid 

9 or incurred for punitive damages in connection with 

10 any judgment in, or settlement of, any action.’’. 

11 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading 

12 for section 162(g) of such Code is amended by in13 serting ‘‘OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES’’ after ‘‘LAWS’’. 

14 (b) INCLUSION IN INCOME OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES

15 PAID BY INSURER OR OTHERWISE.— 

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Part II of subchapter B of 

17 chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

18 amended by adding at the end the following new sec19 tion: 

20 ‘‘SEC. 92. PUNITIVE DAMAGES COMPENSATED BY INSUR21 ANCE OR OTHERWISE. 

22 ‘‘Gross income shall include any amount paid to or 

23 on behalf of a taxpayer as insurance or otherwise by rea24 son of the taxpayer’s liability (or agreement) to pay puni25 tive damages.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1185 IS

1 (2) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Section 6041 

2 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new subsection: 

4 ‘‘(h) SECTION TO APPLY TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES

5 COMPENSATION.—This section shall apply to payments by 

6 a person to or on behalf of another person as insurance 

7 or otherwise by reason of the other person’s liability (or 

8 agreement) to pay punitive damages.’’. 

9 (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of 

10 sections for part II of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 

11 such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol12 lowing new item: 

‘‘Sec. 92. Punitive damages compensated by insurance or otherwise.’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to damages paid or incurred on 

15 or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case 2:11-cv-00698-JLL-MAH Document 12 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 52
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5053 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5053

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 1475 Western Avenue, Suite 45, in Albany, New York, as the 
                ``Lieutenant John F. Finn Post Office''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5053

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 1475 Western Avenue, Suite 45, in Albany, New York, as the 
                ``Lieutenant John F. Finn Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1475 
Western Avenue, Suite 45, in Albany, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lieutenant John F. Finn Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant John F. Finn Post 
Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In re A.V., a juvenile, * Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding

No. 11-22-00361-CV * January 5, 2023

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered A.V.’s application for writ of habeas corpus and 

concludes that the application for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

application for habeas corpus is dismissed.
Exhibit 10.7
  Granted Under the Amended and Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Plan
 Company Michael L.
Chasen Participant
 Grant of RSUs
 October 15, 2009 Grant Date Plan RSUs One Hundred Twenty Thousand (120,000) Common Stock Shares
 Vesting and Forfeiture
  Vesting Date
  Cause
 Disability
 Good Reason




---



##### 



Eligible Participant
 .
 Issuance of Shares and Rights to Vote and Receive Dividends
 Issuance Event
 Separation From Service Section 409A Section 409A
Change in Control Event
 2015 Election
 Issuance Event
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Issuance Date 1 2 specified employee th Issuance Date
 Voting and Dividend Rights. Dividend Equivalent Rights
 Acceleration/ Deferral
 Acceleration
 Deferral
 Transferability
 transfer
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Taxes
  Withholding Taxes
  Securities Laws
  Adjustments
  - 4 -




---



##### 



Provisions of the Plan
  Miscellaneous
 Section 409A
 Unsecured Creditor
 Severability
 Waiver
 Binding Effect
 Notice
 Entire Agreement
 Amendment
 - 5 -




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Electronic Delivery
  Blackboard Inc.Dated: October 15, 2009
    By:
    /s/  Matthew SmallMatthew SmallChief Business Officer   PARTICIPANT:/s/ Michael ChasenPrint Name:
    Michael L. Chasen - 6 -




---



##### 



Number
    
    
    
    Numberof Full
    
    
    
    of FullMonths
    
    
    
    MonthsElapsed
    
    Shares
    
    Elapsed
    
    Shares1
    
    102
    
    25
    
    33,1632
    
    306
    
    26
    
    35,8163
    
    612
    
    27
    
    38,5714
    
    1,020
    
    28
    
    41,4285
    
    1,530
    
    29
    
    44,3876
    
    2,142
    
    30
    
    47,4487
    
    2,857
    
    31
    
    50,6128
    
    3,673
    
    32
    
    53,8779
    
    4,591
    
    33
    
    57,24410
    
    5,612
    
    34
    
    60,71411
    
    6,734
    
    35
    
    64,28512
    
    7,959
    
    36
    
    67,95913
    
    9,285
    
    37
    
    71,73414
    
    10,714
    
    38
    
    75,61215
    
    12,244
    
    39
    
    79,59116
    
    13,877
    
    40
    
    83,67317
    
    15,612
    
    41
    
    87,85718
    
    17,448
    
    42
    
    92,14219
    
    19,387
    
    43
    
    96,53020
    
    21,428
    
    44
    
    101,02021
    
    23,571
    
    45
    
    105,61222
    
    25,816
    
    46
    
    110,30623
    
    28,163
    
    47
    
    115,10224
    
    30,612
    
    48
    
    120,000
 - 7 -




---



##### 



Exhibit B
  Broker Standing Order Account
      PARTICIPANT:/s/ Michael ChasenPrint Name:
    Michael ChasenDate:              October 15, 2009 - 8 -
**Exhibit 21.1**

**OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**

**Subsidiaries of OmniVision Technologies, Inc.**

Registrant’s significantconsolidated subsidiaries and the state or jurisdiction of organization of eachsubsidiary are shown below:
| Name of Subsidiary                         | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** | ** ** | **Percentage  Ownership** | ** ** |
|------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------|------------|
| OmniVision  International Holding Ltd.               |       | Cayman  Islands                         |       | 100%                      |       |
| HuaWei Technology  International, Ltd.               |       | Cayman  Islands                         |       | 100%                      |       |
| (formerly  OmniView Technology International, Ltd.)  |       |                                    |       |                      |       |
| OmniVision Technologies  (Hong Kong) Company Limited |       | Hong  Kong, China                       |       | 100%                      |       |
| OmniVision Trading  (Hong Kong) Company Limited      |       | Hong  Kong, China                       |       | 100%                      |       |
| HuaWei Semiconductor  (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.           |       | China                                   |       | 100%                      |       |
| (formerly  OmniView Electronic (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.) |       |                                    |       |                      |       |
| Shanghai OmniVision IC  Design Co., Ltd.             |       | China                                   |       | 100%                      |       |
| CDM Optics, Inc.                                     |       | Colorado                                |       | 100%                      |       |
| Taiwan OmniVision Technologies Co., Ltd.             |       | Taiwan                                  |       | 100%                      |       |

 

----