alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CHRISTOPHER LAMONT WILLIAMS,

a.k.a. Christopher Williams,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10535

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00709-MHM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Christopher Lamont Williams appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and

120-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams

or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). 

FILED

FEB 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10535

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Williams’s counsel has

filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw

as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a

pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has

been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d

1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF NEW VALLEY

     The following is a list of the active subsidiaries of New Valley as of
December 31, 2004, indicating the jurisdiction of incorporation and the name
under which such subsidiary conducts business.

<Table>
<Caption>
           NAME OF BUSINESS (% OWNERSHIP)                  JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
           ------------------------------                  -----------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>
ALKI Corp. (100%)                                                    Delaware
New Valley Real Estate Corporation (100%)                            Delaware
</Table>

     Not included above are other subsidiaries which, if considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary,
as such term is defined by Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          61,904
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  102,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,750
<PP&E>                                       1,339,444
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,261,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 334,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,828,001
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,225,002
<COMMON>                                     2,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,017,934
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   334,968
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               454,663
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  620,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,569
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (207,970)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (207,970)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (207,970)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Sacramento MSA, by fatal event

Fatal occupational injuries in the Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Acade MSA, by event, 2018 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries in the Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Acade MSA, by event, 2018		

Fatal occupational injuries in the Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Acade MSA, by event, 2018 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries in the Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Acade MSA, by event, 2018		

Page &P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130772 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: 130772 

 COA: 257105 

Wayne CC: 04-003-182-01 

MARTEZ DeJUAN REYNOLDS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 9, 2006 

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. 

t0619 

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 26, 2006 

Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

April 29, 2011 

h0426 

Order 

 

April 29, 2011 

142442-3 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 142442-3 

 COA: 294147; 295111 

Wayne CC: 09-012575-FH 

MARTEEZ DONOVAN LAIDLER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). 

 We order the Wayne Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order 

2003-03, to appoint attorney Mark Hall, if feasible, to represent the defendant in this 

Court. See MCR 6.425(G)(1)(d)(iv). The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 

42 days of the date of the order appointing appellate defense counsel. The briefs shall 

address whether, for purposes of offense variable 3, Dante Holmes was a victim and, 

even if Holmes was not a victim, whether the defendant could appropriately be scored 

100 points for offense variable 3 on the theory that “death result[ed] from the commission 

of a crime and homicide is not the sentencing offense.” See MCL 777.33(2)(b).
Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C. 20212 

Technical Contact: USDL: 05-1571 

(202) 691-6199 ocltinfo@bls.gov 

Media Contact: FOR RELEASE: 10:00 A.M. (EDT) 

(202) 691-5902 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2005 

Internet address: 

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/home.htm 

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY, 2005 

Seventy percent of workers in private industry had access to employer-sponsored medical care plans, and 

53 percent participated in medical care plans in March 2005, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. 

Department of Labor reported today. Sixty percent of workers had access to retirement benefits, with 50 

percent participating in at least one type of retirement plan. These findings are from the Summary, “National 

Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2005,” published today. These results 

can be found on the BLS Web site http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/sp/ebsm0003.pdf. 

These data are from the National Compensation Survey (NCS), which provides comprehensive measures 

of occupational earnings, compensation cost trends, and details of benefit provisions. In addition to health and 

retirement plans, the survey also covered paid leave, disability insurance, and other selected benefits. The 

following are some of the major findings: 

• Most employees covered by medical care plans were in plans requiring employee contributions for 

both single coverage and family coverage. Employee contributions to medical care premiums 

averaged $273.03 per month for family coverage; for single coverage, employee contributions 

averaged $68.96 per month. 

• Employer premiums for medical care plans averaged $575.77 a month per participant for family 

coverage, for single coverage employer contributions averaged $252.22 a month. Employer 

contributions were higher for those employees who were not required to contribute than for those who 

were. 

• Twenty-one percent of employees participated in defined benefit retirement plans, and 42 percent in 

defined contribution plans. (Some employees participate in both types.) 

• Paid leave was the most commonly provided employee benefit in the private sector: paid holidays and 

vacations were available to 77 percent of employees. Paid jury duty leave was also common, available 

to 69 percent of workers. Forty-eight percent of the workers had paid military leave benefits. 

The release and Summary Report are available by e-mail request at ocltinfo@bls.gov, by telephone (202) 

691-6199, or on the BLS Internet site, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm. Regional Information offices, listed 

on the Internet site, http://www.bls.gov/bls/regncon.htm, also are available to answer any of your questions. 

United States 

Department News of Labor
No. 1124.

#### Schreffler, doing business as Schreffler Steel & Supply Co., et al. *v.*Bowles, Price Administrator.

June 10, 1946.

*Byron G. Rogers*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General McGrath*and *Milton Klein*for respondent.

Porter substituted for Bowles. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED APRIL 4, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-05-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                             282
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,920<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,875)<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     68,329
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,393
<PP&E>                                         219,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (73,585)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 397,526
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,430
<BONDS>                                        226,623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   397,526
<SALES>                                        201,889
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               201,889
<CGS>                                          167,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  167,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,821
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,495
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,326
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,326
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
<FN>
<F1>
Amounts are reported net of reserves in the Consolidated Condensed Balance
Sheets.

Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line on the Balance Sheet or
Statement of Income are reported as $0 herein.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
Westmoreland Coal Company; and2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
 Date:      May 8, 2009
    /s/ Kevin A. PaprzyckiName:
    Kevin A. PaprzyckiTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
t£' #e-?(/cJ7~-

btA"C£/ "

ZO.W-02

COURT OFcm

FEB 05 2015

J8

/ .. y ' • -- -

's+JO'iSMiZZ*-* '.,„«* s/jW ^//r'".

OSTS-'*'^
/ -/***/* /+ r'ue- * c*ssccr <r*sy^ c*/s'/*s /

lofX.

a/*^

„,*«/*"j*J. ""'''

e/,rcJ«'#', ^^y res?/
# LMAs

# MDs

# Isolated MCDs
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 March 19, 2013 
 Mr. Sujit Sircar 

Emp ID: 500663 
 Dear Sujit, 

Re: Amendment (this “Amendment”) to your Employment Agreement dated July 1, 2011 (the “Employment Agreement”)

 We are pleased to inform you of revisions to some of the terms of your Employment Agreement. 

Upon execution of this Amendment by you and iGATE Global Solutions Limited, the following Item of your Employment Agreement shall be amended and restated
in its entirety as set forth below, with retroactive effect to January 1, 2012: 
 Item 2 of Annexure A to the Employment
Agreement: 
 2. Your annual performance based incentive for the period effective January 01, 2012, shall be an amount not exceeding INR
72,00,000 (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Only) based upon a review of your performance by the Board of Directors of the Company. The annual performance-based incentive to be quantified and to be paid quarterly, half yearly or annually as the Board may
determine. 
 Except as stated above, all other terms and conditions contained in the Employment Agreement shall remain unaltered and shall
continue to be in force as earlier. 
 This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and both of
which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 
 All capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meaning
given to such terms in the Employment Agreement. 
 This Amendment may not be modified or waived except in writing executed by both parties to
this Amendment. 
 This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of India. 

We look forward to your very active participation and contribution in our journey to scaling newer heights and make iGATE a world class organization. We
wish you a happy and rewarding career with iGATE. 
 Please sign and return one original to us indicating your acceptance of the revised terms
of your appointment. 
  

					
	Yours truly,	 		 	
			
	For iGATE Global Solutions Limited	 		 	I Accept
			
	 /s/ Srinivas Kandula
	 		 	 /s/ Sujit Sircar

	Srinivas Kandula	 		 	Sujit Sircar
			
	Global Head- HR
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Clarence J. BREWER, James A. Roberts and Anthony J. Morocco.

No. 22085.

United States District Court N. D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

July 8, 1959

Vane G. Hawkins, Athens, Ga., for movants.

Charles D. Read, Jr., Acting U. S. Atty., and E. Ralph Ivey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta, Ga., for the United States.

SLOAN, District Judge.

The defendants, Clarence J. Brewer and James A. Roberts, here file motions for the return of seized property and for the suppression of evidence in the above-stated case.

It appears that a similar motion was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in which district the property was seized; a hearing was had thereon and judgments overruling and denying same were entered on the 16th day of June, 1959, by Honorable W. A. Bootle, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia.

Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., provides that a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the district court for the District in which *130the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for use in evidence anything so obtained, and further provides that “the motion to suppress evidence may also be made in the district where the trial is to be had.” This rule, in the opinion of the Court, is intended to provide for a hearing in either district, but does not require multiple hearings.

In the absence of exceptional circumstances,1 the ruling of Judge Bootle is controlling here 2 and the motions are dismissed.

1

. TCF Film Corp. v. Gourley, 3 Cir., 240 F.2d 711, 713; United States v. Wheeler, 3 Cir., 256 F.2d 745, 747, 748.

2

. Commercial Union of America v. Anglo South American Bank, 2 Cir., 10 F.2d 937; Waldron v. United States, 95 U.S. App.D.C. 66, 219 F.2d 37.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brandon Jackson, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 902]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court’s questions to him during the plea colloquy concerning the waiver of the right to appeal and defendant’s responses thereto establish that defendant understood and knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal *(see People v Brown [Sean],*41 AD3d 1234 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 873 [2007]; *People v Wilson,*38 AD3d 1348 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 927 [2007]). The court was “not required to engage in any particular litany” in order to obtain a valid waiver of the right to appeal *(People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909, 910 [1990]), which encompasses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Gorski, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**
CERTIFICATION
I, Tim Burroughs, certify that:
(1)  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of TBX Resources, Inc.; (2)  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this annual report; (3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; (4)  The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:
   (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;    (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures asof a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this annual report (“Evaluation Date”); and    (c) Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date: (5)  The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the Registrant’s auditor and the Audit Committee of the Registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):    (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls, which couldadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the Registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and    (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls; and (6)  The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of the most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.
Dated this 25 th  day of March 2005   /s/ Tim Burroughs    Tim Burroughs  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Bondy Tan, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Lightscape Technologies Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Lightscape
      Technologies Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2007 (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 Lightscape Technologies Inc.                                                              



Dated: July 16, 2007

*/s/ Bondy Tan*

Bondy Tan 
  President and Chief Executive Officer 
  (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial 
  Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lightscape
Technologies Inc. and will be retained by Lightscape Technologies Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---