alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Frank SENATORE, Defendant.

Crim. No. 44458.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

Feb. 26, 1959.

*291Cornelius W. Wickersham, Jr., U. S. Atty., Eastern Dist. of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., for United States, Morton J. Schlossberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel.

James J. Hanrahan, New York City, for defendant.

BRUCHHAUSEN, District Judge.

The defendant moves for the allowance of bail pending appeal, pursuant to Rule 46(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., which provides that bail may be allowed pending appeal unless it appears that the appeal is frivolous or taken for delay.

The defendant was found guilty on a charge of receiving goods, knowing them to have been stolen, also on a conspiracy charge and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months.

Neither the moving affidavit of Mary Senatore nor paragraphs 1 to 9, both inclusive and paragraph 12 of the accompanying affidavit of James J. Hanrahan are relevant to the application and therefore may not enter into consideration herein.

Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the latter affidavit are merely a rephrasing of Rule 46(c) of said Rules.

In paragraph 13 of the said affidavit, Mr. Hanrahan, the defendant’s trial counsel, sets forth various grounds of appeal, which are hereinafter analyzed.

The first of the trial errors alleged is that the Government failed to produce the report of a witness, a Federal Agent. This has no merit in that the defendant did not request its production.

The second alleged error is that the Court refused to furnish the addresses of codefendants. This obviously is without merit.

The third alleged error is that the prosecutor, over objection, was permitted to cross-examine the defendant fully concerning the 1934 incident. The inquiry resulted from a question of the defendant as to whether he had ever used any name other than his own. In replying, the defendant requested an opportunity to give a full explanation to which the defendant’s attorney offered no objection.

The fourth alleged error is that the Court on divers occasions refused to permit specific objections to evidence. Very properly, the defendant’s attorney was requested to avoid lengthy state*292ments and to make his objections in the usual form.

The fifth assignment of alleged error is that the Court refused to permit the defendant’s attorney to read his requests to charge in the presence of the jury. The Court’s ruling was in accord with Rule 30 of the said Rules.

Th^ sixth alleged error relates to the claimed misconduct of the prosecutor and is entirely-unsupported and unwarranted.

It appearing that the appeal is frivolous and taken for delay, the motion is in all respects denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 540 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 540

 To amend title 9, United States Code, to allow employees the right to 
   accept or reject the use of arbitration to resolve an employment 
                              controversy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 9, United States Code, to allow employees the right to 
   accept or reject the use of arbitration to resolve an employment 
                              controversy.

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

SECTION 1. ARBITRATION CHOICE.

    (a) Definition.--Section 1 of chapter 1 of title 9, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``nation, but nothing herein'' and all 
that follows through the end and inserting ``nation.''.
    (b) Arbitration Choice.--Chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 17. Resolution of controversy
    ``(a) Notwithstanding an employment contract that provides for the 
use of arbitration to resolve a controversy arising out of or relating 
to the employment relationship, arbitration may be used to settle such 
a dispute only if--
            ``(1) the employer or employee submits a written request 
        after the dispute arises to the other party to use arbitration; 
        and
            ``(2) the other party consents in writing not later than 60 
        days after the receipt of the request to use arbitration.
    ``(b) An employer subject to this Act may not require an employee 
to arbitrate a dispute as a condition of employment.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall apply to contracts entered 
into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or extended after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Minutes of Proceeding

OFFICE: TRENTON

JUDGE DOUGLAS E. ARPERT, USMJ Date:November 23, 2015

DIGITALLY RECORDED

TITLE OF CASE: 

 CIVIL 11-4194(PGS/DEA)

MARY ANN SIVOLELLA

v.

AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

APPEARANCES:

 

Arnold Lakind, Daniel Sweetser, Robert Lakind & Robert Stevens, Esqs.,

on behalf of Plaintiff.

Jonathan Korn, Sean Murphy, Rita Ganguli & Robert Hora, Esqs., on behalf

of Defendants.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 

Final Pretrial Conference held on the record.

TIME COMMENCED: 10:29 AM s/Charmaine D. Ellington

TIME ADJOURNED: 11:36 AM Deputy Clerk

TOTAL TIME: (1:05)

Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 177 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 11741
# Index

# Table 4.1b

# Table 4.2b

# Table 4.3b

# Table 4.4b
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4295

NELSON PEREZ, a/k/a Pop, a/k/a Eric

Epps,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.

James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-94-41)

Submitted: September 13, 2001

Decided: September 25, 2001

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Edward H. Childress, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Ruth

Plagenhoef, United States Attorney, Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Nelson Perez appeals the twenty-four-month prison sentence the

district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. Perez

asserts that the sentence was plainly unreasonable because it exceeded

the eight-to-fourteen month sentence suggested under U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (2000). Perez also claims that the

court failed to consider the availability of a substance abuse treatment

program and other factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 1985 &

Supp. 2001) before imposing sentence. We affirm. 

After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Perez to a twenty-fourmonth term of imprisonment. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638,

642 (4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard of review). We also find that

the district court properly considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a).

Id. ("A court need not engage in ritualistic incantation in order to

establish its consideration of a legal issue. It is sufficient if . . . the

district court rules on issues that have been fully presented for determination. Consideration is implicit in the court’s ultimate ruling."). 

Accordingly, we affirm Perez’s 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

2 UNITED STATES v. PEREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT' COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

UNITED STATES v. BRIHEEM NERO : CRINHNAL NO.: tt .. cR ... 405 

PETITI()N FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORI>US 

(X) Ad Prosequendum ( ) Ad Testificandum 

1. BRIHEEM NERO, SBI# 218095C; FBI# 966964CB4, 

"Detainee'') is now confined at the: 

• (hereinafter the 

PASSAIC COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

2. The Detainee is charged in this District by: ( X ) Indictment ( ) Inforn1ation ( ) Complaint 

with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g). 

3. The Detainee wi11 be returned to the custody of the detaining facility upon termination of 

proceedings. 

4. The Detainee will be required at the U.S. POST OFFICE & COURTHOUSE~ FEDERAL 

SQUARE, COURTROOM #5, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, before the Hon. Katharine S. 

Hayden, U.S.D.J., on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, %012 at 9:00a.m., for SENTENCING in 

the above-captioned case. A Writ of Habeas Corpus 'should issue for that purpose. 

DATED: October 17, 2012 

Fabiana Pierre-Louis 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Petitioner 
ORDER 

Let the Wn. "t lsfu~~ J 

DATED: JO(ZVfiV 

WRIT OF HABEAS 

The United States of America to Warden of the PASSAIC CO 

FACILITY: 

WE COMMAND YOU that you have the body of 

BRIHEEM NERO 

now confined at the PASSAIC COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACULTY, brought before the 

United States District Court, the Hon. Katharine S. Hayden, U .. District Judge, U.S. POST 

OFFICE & COURTHOUSE, FEDERAL SQUARE, Courtroom #5, NEW ARK, NEW JERSEY 

on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., for SENT NCING in the above-captioned 

matter. 

Immediately upon completion of the proceedings, the Detainee ·n be returned to said place of 

confinement in safe and secure conduct. 

DATED: 

WITNESS the Honorable Katharine S. Hayden 

United States District Judge 

Newark, New Jersey. 

foWrv I ' .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7136

DONZELL L. JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE COUNTY OF DINWIDDIE, Virginia; OFFICER

MARTIN, County Administrator; SAMUEL SHANDS,

Sheriff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-97-917)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donzell L. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint under 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and find that this appeal fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Jackson v. County of

Dinwiddie, No. CA-97-917 (E.D. Va. July 1, 1998). 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert DENMARK, a.k.a. Mark Anthony White, a.k.a. Darrick Maynard Scrub, a.k.a. Bryan Junior Robinson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-12430

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2012.

Wifredo A. Ferrer, Kathleen Mary Sal-yer, Anne Ruth Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s *900Office, Miami, FL, Lothrop Morris, U.S. Attorney’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Peter Vincent Birch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Robert Denmark, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Peter Birch, appointed counsel for Robert Denmark 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, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Denmark’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                              CERTIFICATION BY THE
                 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, E. Leon Daniel, Chief Executive Officer, of Ivanhoe Energy Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify that:

(a) the Company's periodic report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003 (the "Form 10-K"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related interpretations;
and

(b) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                      * * *


Chief Executive Officer

By:   /s/  E. Leon Daniel
      --------------------------------------------
      E. Leon Daniel

March 2, 2004



                                       68
Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 246   Filed 12/30/14   Page 1 of 6 PageID: 15427

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 246   Filed 12/30/14   Page 2 of 6 PageID: 15428

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 246   Filed 12/30/14   Page 3 of 6 PageID: 15429

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 246   Filed 12/30/14   Page 4 of 6 PageID: 15430

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 246   Filed 12/30/14   Page 5 of 6 PageID: 15431

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 246   Filed 12/30/14   Page 6 of 6 PageID: 15432
EX-10.69



 Exhibit 10.69 

 
 



 
 PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 
 By Hand 
 February 27, 2013 
 Sukhi Jagpal 
 c/o 887 Great Northern Way, Suite 101 

Vancouver BC V5T 4T5 
 Dear Sukhi: 

Re: Employment Agreement Amendment 
 Further to
our recent discussions, this letter sets out the terms of our agreement to amend your Employment Agreement dated November 1, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”). 
 Pursuant to your Employment Agreement, you have been employed in the position of Interim Chief Financial Officer since July 20, 2012. We have reached an agreement that your employment with QLT will
continue with the title of your position changed to “Chief Financial Officer”. 
 We have agreed to amend your Employment Agreement as
follows: 
  

	1.	Section 1.1. of your Employment Agreement, will be “Chief Financial Officer”. 


 

	2.	Your annual salary will be $250,000 and your target cash incentive compensation will be 35% of your annual salary pro-rated for the partial year in 2013. You will
continue to be eligible for a cash incentive compensation payment based on the 25% target and your current annual salary pro-rated for the period from January 1 to the effective date of this letter. 


 

	3.	Section 3.1 is amended by replacing all of the current Section 3.1 with the following: 


3.1 Termination by Employee. The Employee may at any time terminate his employment upon giving QLT 60 days’ prior written
notice of the effective date of his resignation. If the Employee provides 60 days’ notice in writing of his resignation, the Employee will receive the severance entitlements in accordance with section 3.2, paid out as lump sum payment of salary
in lieu of notice and not working notice. QLT may in its discretion waive all or any part of the 60 day notice period in which case the employment of the Employee will terminate on the earlier day selected by QLT and the Employee will not be
entitled to compensation for the balance of the notice period. 

  

					
		  	- 1 -	  	Initials        











			
	 Sukhi Jagpal
 Page
2
	  	PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

  


	4.	Except as and only to the extent amended by this letter, your Employment Agreement will continue to apply to your employment with QLT Inc. 


The amendments in this letter will become effective on February 27, 2013. Please confirm your agreement to these amendments to your Employment Agreement
by signing where indicated below and returning to us a copy of this letter. 
 If you have any questions, please contact me. 

Yours truly, 
 QLT Inc. 

 

					
	  /s/ Jeffrey Meckler
	 		 	February 27, 2013
	Jeffrey Meckler	 		 	
	Director and Chair, Executive Transition Committee	 		 	

 I confirm that I have agreed to the amendments to my Employment Agreement dated November 1, 2012 on the terms and
conditions set out above. 
  

					
	  /s/ Sukhi Jagpal
	 		 	February 27, 2013
	Sukhi Jagpal	 		 	


  

Initials
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ,

Respondent

v.

JOHN COLE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 18 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of March

, 2018, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED, and the Application for Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
Series {
  Decimals = 3
  File = 
  Format = Datevalue
  Save = (B1)
  Span = (2016.01,2023.12)
  Start = 2016.01
  Title = "Airline fare - best job (2016.01,2023.12)"
}
PickMdl { 
  File = 
  Method = Best
  Mode = Fcst
  Overdiff = 0.95
}
Estimate { 
  Exact = ArMa
  MaxIter = 1500
  Print = (LkStats)
}
Regression { 
  Variables = (AO2020.04
               AO2022.05
               RP2020.02-2020.05
               RP2021.03-2021.05
               RP2022.01-2022.04)
}
Transform { Power = 0.0 } 
X11 { 
  AppendFcst = No 
  Mode = Mult
  Print = (Brief +Extreme +D13)
  Save = (C20 D10 D11 D13)
  SeasonalMA = s3x9
  SigmaLim = (1.5 2.5)
  Title = "Airline fare - best job (2016.01,2023.12)"
}
Spectrum {print=()}
Exhibit 31.2
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting,
or caused such internal control over financial reporting
to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 By:
    /s/ Dominick GolioName:
    Dominick GolioTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                LETTER OF INTENT

ThermoEnergy Corporation ("TEC") and CSC, Inc. ("CSC") agree as follows:

         1.       TEC and CSC will each respect the confidential nature of
                  information provided by each to the other.

         2.       TEC and CSC are considering a transaction in which TEC will
                  issue to CSC common shares of TEC in a number to be determined
                  (the "TEC shares") in exchange for 100% of the fully diluted
                  equity of CSC ("CSC Equity"), making CSC a wholly-owned
                  subsidiary of TEC, except that (i) CSC shall have the right to
                  return to TEC the TEC shares at any time prior to December 31,
                  2003, receive in return back from TEC the CSC Equity, and
                  continue on as an independent company, and (ii) current CSC
                  management shall continue to operate CSC as an independent
                  company until December 31, 2003, but not thereafter in the
                  event that CSC has not returned to TEC the TEC shares prior to
                  December 31, 2003.

         3.       Except for paragraph one (1) hereof, this letter is a
                  nonbinding statement of intent.



By:  /s/ Dennis C. Cossey                    By:    /s/ Harry Claterbos
    -------------------------------              -------------------------------
     Dennis C. Cossey, CEO                                Harry Claterbos
     For:  ThermoEnergy Corporation          For:  Container Service Company
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136061 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136061 

 COA: 274133 

Iosco CC: 06-002566-FH 

CLIFFORD EUGENE COMSTOCK, JR., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2008 

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

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

l0616 

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. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk