alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30089

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HECTOR BARRAGAN-ESPINO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:08-CR-121-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector BarraganEspino has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Barragan-Espino has filed a response. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well

as Barragan-Espino’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 25, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-30089 Document: 00512124352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2013
No. 12-30089

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, Barragan-Espino’s motion for appointment of

substitute counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-30089 Document: 00512124352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2013
[954 NYS2d 721]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Angel Silva-Almodovar, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

September 7, 2012

*63APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Vincent Rivellese*of counsel), for appellant. *Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Jonathan Garelick*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated August 13, 2010, insofar as appealed from, reversed, on the law, dismissal motions denied, informations reinstated, and matter remanded to Criminal Court for further proceedings.

Defendant’s threshold motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments underlying these three companion criminal prosecutions should have been denied. The informations were facially sufficient since they set forth nonhearsay statements adequately alleging defendant’s commission of unlicensed general vending (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-453; *People v Abdurraheem,*94 AD3d 569 [2012]) and, indeed, defendant does not now argue otherwise. Nor, based on the four corners of the accusatory instruments themselves (see *People v Thomas,*4 NY3d 143, 146 [2005]), can it conclusively be determined that the items allegedly offered for sale by defendant, which the People’s pleadings described without elaboration as “rocks” or “decorative rocks,” qualify as constitutionally protected speech so as to exempt defendant from the licensure requirements of the general vending ordinance. Defendant’s First Amendment arguments hinge on several unresolved questions of law and fact, including whether and to what extent the rocks were adorned or embellished, whether they possessed expressive elements and, if so, whether their dominant purpose was expressive or non-expressive *(see Mastrovincenzo v City of New York,*435 F3d 78 [2d Cir 2006]). Resolution of the constitutional issues framed herein — of the type which can present “difficult line-drawing problems” *(Mastrovincenzo*at 95)— must await a more developed record.

Hunter, Jr., J.P, Shulman and Torres, JJ., concur.
Form of Amendment to Amendment to Equity/Long-Term Incentive Award Agreement



 Exhibit 10.24 
 [Cell Therapeutics, Inc. Letterhead] 
 November 30, 2010 

[Name] 
 Cell Therapeutics, Inc. 

501 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 400 
 Seattle,
Washington 98119 
 Re:     Amendment to Equity/Long-Term Incentive Award Agreement

 Dear [Name]: 

This letter agreement (this “Amendment”) is made with reference to that certain Equity/Long-Term Incentive Award
Agreement dated as of December 15, 2009, and that certain Restricted Stock Award Agreement dated as of July 12, 2010 (together, the “Award Agreements”), each by and between Cell Therapeutics, Inc., a Washington corporation
(the “Company”), and [                    ] [(the “Director”)][(the “Officer”)].

 This Amendment amends the “Opaxio MAA Approval” vesting condition referenced in and for purposes of each of the
Award Agreements. For purposes of the Award Agreements, the “Opaxio/Pixantrone MAA Approval” vesting condition shall be satisfied when the Company obtains approval of a marketing authorization application (“MAA”) for
either OPAXIO or pixantrone, whichever first occurs. (For purposes of clarity, if the Company obtains approval of a MAA for both OPAXIO and pixantrone, the “Opaxio/Pixantrone MAA Approval” for purposes of the Award Agreements shall be
deemed to occur on the first of such events, but not both such events.) 
 Except for the amendment of the “Opaxio MAA
Approval” vesting condition to the “Opaxio/Pixantrone MAA Approval” set forth in the preceding paragraph, the other terms and conditions of the Award Agreements continue in effect (including, without limitation, the termination and
forfeiture provisions of the Award Agreements to the extent the Opaxio/Pixantrone MAA Approval vesting condition and/or other vesting conditions are not satisfied on or before December 31, 2011 or prior to a termination of the award
recipient’s employment or services). 
  

			
	Cell Therapeutics, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 
	Name:	 	James A. Bianco, M.D.
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-22-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-25-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-22-1997
<CASH>                                          11,985
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     35,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,229
<PP&E>                                       1,063,651
<DEPRECIATION>                                 561,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 956,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,315
<BONDS>                                        382,499
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           438
<OTHER-SE>                                     357,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   956,541
<SALES>                                        114,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               904,272
<CGS>                                           67,441
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  619,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                131,869
<INCOME-TAX>                                    54,066
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,803
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,803
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.80
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7000

ONTERIO DIMITRI BROWN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T.S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00039

- TSE

- JFA )

Submitted : March 24, 2022 Decided: March 28, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Onterio Dimitri Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Onterio Dimitri Brown seeks to appeal the district court’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and he has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability

. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 53(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonst rating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must de monstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

July 30, 2013

s0722 

# Order

Clerk July 30, 2013

146598 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MIC HIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146598

COA: 311135

Saginaw CC: 05

- 026592

- FC

HUBERT JAMES HOKING

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 14 , 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The

motion to remand is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FIRST
QUARTER FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 6/30/99 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-24-1998
<CASH>                                             710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,856
<INVENTORY>                                     50,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,799
<PP&E>                                          54,210
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,512
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 205,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,778
<BONDS>                                        140,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           34,109
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     (19,426)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   205,220
<SALES>                                         27,706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,706
<CGS>                                           19,386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,828
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,017
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,791)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,734)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (1,687)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,421)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.72)
        

</TABLE>
C OURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSA SERRANO ,

Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ,

State

. §
§
§
§
§
§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 190

- C R

Appeal from the
243 rd District Court
of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 20170D00317 )

O R D E R Appellant has filed a pro se motion requesting the appointment of appellate counsel. The El Paso County District Clerk has provided the Court with copies of the trial court’s orders permitting Appellant’s appointed attorneys, Mr. Leonard Morales and Mr. Greg Anderson, to
withdraw fro m representing Appellant on appeal. There is nothing to indicate Appellant’s financial circumstances have changed since she has been incarcerated. Therefore, we GRANT the motion to appoint appellate counsel for this appeal only

. All other relief requested in Appellant’s
motion is DENIED. T he trial court is ORDERED to appoint counsel to represent Appellant in this appeal. The appointment of counsel does not extend to Appellant’s pending civil appeals (cause
numbers 08

- 16

- 00291

- CV and 08

- 16

- 00327

- CV ). The trial court shall forward the order of appointment to the District Clerk of El Paso County, Texas on or before December 19, 2017 . The District Clerk of El Paso County, shall prepare and file with this Court a Supplemental Clerk’s
Record to inclu de said order of appointment on or before December 22, 2017

. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6 th day of December , 201 7

.

PER CURIAM
Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert L. Neal, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this  Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A
     for the year ended May 31, 2007 of Jacobs Financial Group, Inc.;

2.   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:  September 27, 2007          By:       /s/ Robert L Neal
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Robert L Neal
                                             Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 10-Q BALANCE SHEET & INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
        <S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,653,435
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               42,644,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,212,504
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            52,740,954
<PP&E>                                      25,914,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             124,440,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,473,338
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       100,951
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,177,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               124,440,574
<SALES>                                     90,891,688
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            90,891,688
<CGS>                                       47,298,681
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,298,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            69,862,635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            17,403,663
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,965,882
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (34,235,510)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (149,477)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (34,086,033)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (34,086,033)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (3.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.38)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 of Winton Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jill M. Burke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

                                     /s/ Jill M. Burke
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Jill M. Burke
                                     Chief Financial Officer

December 17, 2004
ex10-54.htm







Exhibit 10.54



















Summary of Compensation for Non-Employee Directors


Effective January 1, 2011

















Annual Board Retainer                                                              $  55,000







Board Meeting Fee                                                                     $    1,500 per meeting attended







Committee Chair Annual Retainer


Audit/Compensation/Executive                              $  15,000







Committee Chair Annual Retainer


Other Committees                                                      $  10,000







Committee Meeting Fee                                                              $    1,500 per meeting attended







Annual Equity Grant (1)                                                              $125,000













	
(1)

	
Granted in the form Restricted Stock Units effective January 25, 2011.  Messrs. Bech, Kostelnik, Lee, Loyd, Rose and Myers each received 7,060 Restricted Stock Units which will vest in full on December 31, 2011.
exhibit_4-4.htm










Exhibit 4.4


 


[CONSIDER IF TO ADD LOGO]


 


Magal Security Systems Ltd.


P.O. Box 70, Industrial Zone


Yehud 56100, Israel







[           ]


 


To holders of ordinary shares of Magal Security Systems Ltd.:


 


Enclosed are the prospectus and other materials relating to a Rights Offering by Magal Security Systems Ltd.  Please carefully review the prospectus, which describes how you can participate in the Rights Offering.  You will be able to exercise your subscription rights to purchase additional ordinary shares only during a limited period.  You will find answers to some frequently asked questions about the Rights Offering beginning on page 3 of the prospectus.  You should also refer to the detailed Instructions as to Use of Subscription Certificates, which is attached to this letter.  All exercises of subscription rights are irrevocable.


 


The following is a summary of the terms of the Rights Offering:


 



	
  

	
·

	
You will receive one non-transferable subscription right for every [___] ordinary share[s] you hold of record at the close of business on [             ].  We will not issue fractional subscription rights or cash in lieu of fractional subscription rights.  Fractional subscription rights will be rounded down to the nearest whole number.







 



	
  

	
·

	
You may purchase one ordinary share, par value NIS 1.0 of Magal Security Systems Ltd. for each whole subscription right you receive at a subscription price of $[__] per share.







 



	
  

	
·

	
If you exercise in full the subscription rights issued to you, you may subscribe for additional ordinary shares through the oversubscription right, as more fully described in the prospectus.







 



	
  

	
·

	
The Rights Offering will expire at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time (midnight, Israel time), on [             ].  If you do not exercise your subscription rights before that time, they will expire and will have no monetary value.







 



	
  

	
·

	
You cannot revoke the exercise of either your basic or over-subscription rights, unless we amend the terms of the Rights Offering (other than extending the expiration date), in which case you may revoke your exercise before the expiration date.







 



	
  

	
·

	
If your ordinary shares are held in the name of a bank, dealer or other nominee, you must contact your bank, dealer or other nominee if you wish to participate in the Rights Offering.







 


If you have any questions concerning the Rights Offering, please feel free to contact us at +972-3-5391490.


 




	 	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	MAGAL SECURITY SYSTEMS LTD.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51263

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR JAVIER CABALLERO-VALDIVIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-313-ALL

--------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar Javier

Caballero-Valdivia raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.