alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-73374.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2012.

Lee Williams, Compton, CA, pro se.

Catherine B. Bye, Trial, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*712Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lee Williams, a native and citizen of Barbados, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Williams’ contentions regarding his eligibility for adjustment of status based on his residence in the United States and engagement to a U.S. citizen, his criminal conviction, and the denial of a continuance while Williams tried to vacate his conviction because he did not exhaust them. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*858 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).

Williams does not raise, and therefore waives, any other challenges to the BIA’s order. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 

ANTHONY STOKES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOHN STEPHENS a/k/a JOHN LEGEND, 

SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, 

COLUMBIA RECORDS, GETTING OUT OUR 

DREAMS, INC. d/b/a G.O.O.D. Music, JOHN 

DOES 1-20, fictitious persons, and XYZ 

CORPORATIONS 1-20, fictitious entities, 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 

CASE NO.: 2:11-cv-03849 

(SDW) (MCA) 

ECF CASE

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

To the Clerk of this Court and all Counsel of Record: 

Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case on behalf of Defendants JOHN 

STEPHENS a/k/a JOHN LEGEND (“Legend”), SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT and 

COLUMBIA RECORDS (collectively “Sony Music,” as Columbia Records has been erroneously 

sued as a separate legal entity), and GETTING OUT OUR DREAMS, INC. d/b/a G.O.O.D. Music 

(“GM,” erroneously sued herein as GETTING OUT OUR DREAMS MUSIC). I certify that I am 

admitted to practice in this Court. 

Dated: December 19, 2011 

 New York, New York 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 

 By:_ s/ Elizabeth A. Figueira

 Elizabeth A. Figueira 

Eleven Times Square 

New York, New York 10036 

Telephone: 212.969.3000 

Facsimile: 212.969.2900 

efigueira@proskauer.com 

 Attorney for Defendants 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 20 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 112
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I caused the following counsel of record for Plaintiff to be served with a 

copy of the foregoing document via ECF, on this 19th of December 2011: 

Louis D. Tambaro, Esq. 

Marks & Klein, LLP 

63 Riverside Avenue 

Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 

Telephone: (732) 747-7100 

Facsimile: (732) 219-0625 

Dated: December 19, 2011 

 __ s/ Elizabeth A. Figueira ___

 

 Elizabeth A. Figueira 

Case 2:11-cv-03849-SDW -MCA Document 20 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 113
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7080
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERBERT A. MIMS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-92-88, CA-96-387-2) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert A. Mims, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Dee Gri ffith, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no revers ible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mims , Nos. CR-92- 88; CA-96-387-2 (E.D. Va. June 21, 1996). 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
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

30. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment

[Numbers in thousands]

Duration of unemployment

Total Full-time workers

Unemployed Percent distribution Unemployed Percent distribution

2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,825 13,747 100.0 100.0 12,970 11,914 100.0 100.0

Less than 5 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,771 2,677 18.7 19.5 2,099 2,027 16.2 17.0

5 to 14 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,267 2,993 22.0 21.8 2,744 2,507 21.2 21.0

5 to 10 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,082 1,906 14.0 13.9 1,715 1,574 13.2 13.2

11 to 14 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,186 1,087 8.0 7.9 1,029 932 7.9 7.8

15 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,786 8,077 59.3 58.8 8,128 7,381 62.7 62.0

15 to 26 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,371 2,061 16.0 15.0 2,133 1,818 16.4 15.3

27 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,415 6,016 43.3 43.8 5,995 5,563 46.2 46.7

27 to 51 weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,117 1,709 14.3 12.4 1,977 1,559 15.2 13.1

52 weeks and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,298 4,307 29.0 31.3 4,018 4,004 31.0 33.6

Average (mean) duration, in weeks1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.0 39.3 – – 34.9 41.6 – –

Median duration, in weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 21.4 – – 23.9 24.1 – –

1 Beginning in January 2011, this series reflects a change to the collection of data on unemployment duration. For more information, see www.bls.gov/cps/duration.htm.

NOTE: Full time workers are unemployed persons looking for full-time work (35 hours or more per week) or on layoff from full-time jobs. Updated population controls are

introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication criteria (values not shown where base is less than 35,000).

1
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Frank L. Kramer, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of OSK Capital III Corp.;

2.         Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.         The small  business issuer's other certifying  officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

        a)         Designed such disclosure  controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information  relatingto  the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

        b)        Omitted

        c)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

        d)         Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal controlover financial reporting; and

5.         The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the smallbusiness issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

        a)         All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer'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 havea significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James R. Brown, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 438]

Peters, J.P.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree in full satisfaction of the charges pending against him. County Court sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement as a second felony offender to three years in prison, with five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea is not properly before us given his failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Folk,*43 AD3d 1229, 1230 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 1033 [2008]). In any event, our review of the record satisfies us that, contrary to his contention, defendant was not coerced into pleading guilty and defendant’s plea was entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently *(see People v Denson,*40 AD3d 1266, 1266 [2007]; *People v Bowman,*34 AD3d 935, 937 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 844 [2007]).

We also find defendant’s contention that he received ineffec*1029tive assistance of counsel to be without merit. Counsel made appropriate pretrial motions and negotiated an advantageous plea agreement to a lower level felony *(see People v Ellis,*43 AD3d 485, 487 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 961 [2007]; *People v Laffin,*29 AD3d 1034, 1034-1035 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 791 [2006]). Although there was some general confusion as to the terms of incarceration and postrelease supervision, there is nothing in the record that casts doubt on counsel’s effectiveness *(see People v Ming,*35 AD3d 962, 965 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 883 [2007]; *People v Laffin,*29 AD3d at 1034-1035). Finally, defendant’s sentence was neither harsh nor excessive. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement and, given his extensive criminal history, we find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in sentencing *(see People v Cain,*29 AD3d 1157, 1157 [2006]).

Rose, Lahtinen, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6801

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DOMAINE MARTIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock,

Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:93-cr-00122-FWB-1)

Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Domaine Martin, Appellant Pro Se. John Warren Stone, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Domaine Martin appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)

(2000) for credit for prior custody. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Martin, No.

6:93-cr-00122-FWB-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2006). 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
#### Bell *v.*Weyman & Connors.

Lumpkin, J. — There was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the interlocutory injunction prayed for in this case.

December *4,*1894.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Lumpkin. Fulton county. September 8, 1894.

T. C. Battle and W. I. Heyward, for plaintiff.

King & Anderson, for defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*
<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-31.b
<SEQUENCE>4
<FILENAME>ceocertification
<DESCRIPTION>CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 302
<TEXT>


Exhibit 31(b)

CERTIFICATION


I, Mark Clancy, certify that:


> 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB\A of Hybrid Fuel Systems, Inc.;
>   2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
> to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
> such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
>   3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual
> report, fairly present in all material respect the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
> the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.
>   4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
> Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
>   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
> information relating to the registrant, is made known to me by others,
> particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
>     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
> procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
> report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
>     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
> of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
> Evaluation Date;
>     5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
> registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
> (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
>     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
> controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
> process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
> registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
>     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
> employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
>     6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were
> significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
> significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
> evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
> deficiencies and material weaknesses.
> 
> August 13, 2004
>                                  By: /s/ Mark Clancy
>                                  -----------------------------------------------
>                                   Mark Clancy, Chief Executive Officer
> 
> 
> 
> </TEXT>
> </DOCUMENT>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 606

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide that individuals who 

are eligible to join the Armed Forces of the United States are also 

eligible to be security screening personnel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide that 

individuals who are eligible to join the Armed Forces 

of the United States are also eligible to be security 

screening personnel.

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

3 That section 44935(e)(2)(A)(ii) of title 49, United States 

4 Code, is amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(ii) to be eligible to be a security 

6 screener if the individual is eligible to join 

7 the Armed Forces of the United States;’’.

Æ
[No. 55731-9-I.

Division One.

November 21, 2005.]

#### Friends of First United Methodist Church et al., *Appellants,*v. The City of Seattle et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-2-27652-7, Douglass A. North, J., entered January 12, 2005. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Appelwick, A.C.J., concurred in by Agid and Ellington, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.4b


2013


AMENDMENT 


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


This Amendment to Employment
Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made this 1st day of March, 2013 by and between James River Coal Company,
a Virginia corporation (“Company”) and Peter T. Socha (“Executive”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Company and
Executive entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of May 7, 2004, as previously amended (the “Employment Agreement”),
providing for the terms and conditions of Executive’s employment by the Company; and


 


WHEREAS, the parties now
desire to amend the Employment Agreement to extend the Term.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:


 


 1.      Extension of Term. The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended such that it shall expire on May 6, 2016 if not first extended or terminated as set forth in the Employment Agreement.




 


2.       Effective
Date. This Amendment shall be effective May 7, 2013.


 


3.       No
other Changes. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect in accordance with their respective terms. Nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver of any rights or
claims of any party heretofore or hereafter arising under or related to the Employment Agreement.


 


4.       Definitions.
Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given to them in the Employment Agreement.


 


5.       Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, and shall
become effective when one or more such counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other party.


 


[Signatures on following page]




    	 



    	 



    


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date set forth above.


	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 
	 	 
	 	     /s/ PETER T. SOCHA
	 	Peter T. Socha
	 	 
	 	 
	 	COMPANY
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	     /s/ SAMUEL M. HOPKINS, II
	 	By: Samuel M. Hopkins, II
	 	Title: Vice President
Chart 3-8. About one-quarter of workers displaced from fulltime jobs in 2001-2002 found full-time jobs that paid at least 

what they made on their old jobs

Employed in full-time

wage and salary jobs with

earnings the same as or 

higher than on lost jobs

24.2 percent

Not in labor force

14.7 percent

Self-employed or

unpaid family worker

7.1 percent Employed in full-time

wage and salary jobs with

earnings less than

on lost jobs

36.1 percent Employed in part-time

wage and salary jobs

7.0 percent

NOTE: Displaced workers are persons 20 years and older who lost or left jobs they had held for at least 3 years because their plant or

company closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their positions or shifts were abolished.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unemployed

10.8 percent

Employment status

in January 2004

Chart 3-8. About one-quarter of workers displaced from 

full-time jobs in 2001-2002 found full-time jobs that paid at 

least what they made on their old jobs

• Some displaced workers drop out of the labor force after losing their jobs; 

others look for work.

• Most do find work again, although many of these workers earn less than on 

their old job. For example, 67 percent of those displaced from full-time jobs 

during the 2001-2002 period had found new wage and salary jobs by the time 

they were surveyed in 2004. About 36 percent found full-time wage and 

salary employment that paid less than what they earned on their old job. A 

smaller proportion of displaced workers—24 percent—found full-time jobs 

that paid as much or more than what they earned on their previous job. The 

remaining 7 percent were working part time.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Claire C. Cecchi

 

v. : Mag. No. 11-4022 

 

ANDREW AUERNHEIMER : ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (Lee Vartan and Zach Intrater, Assistant

U.S. Attorneys, appearing), and defendant Andrew Auernheimer

(Candace Hom, Esq., appearing),

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that: 

(1) On January 21, 2011, defendant Auernheimer appeared

before a Magistrate Judge in the Western District of Arkansas; 

(2) Pursuant to Rule 5(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure, the Court ordered the United States Marshal’s

Service to transport defendant Auernheimer to the District of New

Jersey; and 

(3) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F), the first

ten days after such an Order is entered shall be excluded in

computing the time within which an information or indictment must

be filed. 

IT IS, therefore, on this day of February, 2011, 

ORDERED that the period from January 22, 2011 through

Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 13-1 Filed 02/04/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 51
and including January 31, 2011 shall be excluded in computing

time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

 

HON. CLAIRE C. CECCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

-2-

Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 13-1 Filed 02/04/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 52