alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7032

STANLEY G. BRIMM, Petitioner - Appellant, versusRONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-1028) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 29, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley G. Brimm, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 19, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 20, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Stanley G. Brimm seeks to appeal the district court’s orderdeclining to reconsider the order refusing to alter or amend judgment denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Brimm v. Angelone , No. CA-99-1028 (E.D. Va. July 20, 2000). * 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000863835  
<NAME>                             GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PARTNERSHIP III-B
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                305,288
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                         307,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      613,142
<PP&E>                              9,402,262
<DEPRECIATION>                      7,903,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      2,248,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  26,108
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                          2,193,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        2,248,586
<SALES>                             1,972,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    2,050,292
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       1,766,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       283,990
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   283,990
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          283,990
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            1.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        
 

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Robert M. Rubin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American United Global,
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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly 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
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure 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 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. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether 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.



                                                 /s/ Robert M. Rubin
Date: April 28, 2006                             -------------------------
                                                 Robert M. Rubin
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### Tatyana LEVINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-55179.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 23, 2008.

Marcy J.K. Tiffany, Wyner & Tiffany, Torrance, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Howard A. Friedman, Peter A. Sansom, Lozano Smith, Vista, CA, for Defendant Appellee.

Before: DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges, and MICHAEL W. MOSMAN,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

ORDER

The petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion filed on December 28, 2007, is withdrawn. A superseding memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order. Further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERI, John Edmunds, the chief Financial Officer of Trident Microsystems, Inc. (the “Registrant”), dohereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification isattached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.   Dated: September 13, 2005 /s/ JOHN S. EDMUNDS          John S. Edmunds       Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46119-46120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21200]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Interest Rates

    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called 
the

[[Page 46120]]

optional ``peg'' rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate 
is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities 
similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base 
rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will 
be 2.50 percent for the October-December quarter of FY 2018.
    Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for 
any third party lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the 
cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New 
York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted 
by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate 
will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given 
State.

Dianna L. Seaborn,
Director, Office of Financial Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2017-21200 Filed 10-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
I3&-/5

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 10-14-00204-CR

Ronald Gene Grizzle, Jr.

STYLE: Texas

TRIAL COURT: 249th D

TRIAL COURT #: F48507

v. The State of

listrict Court

Wayne Bridewell

OFFENSE: Aggravated Sexual Assault

COUNTY: Johnson

MOTION

FOR REHEARING IS:

TRIAL COURT JUDGE: Hon. D.' DATE:

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED JUDGE:

DATE: January 15, 2015

JUSTICE: Scoggins PC S YES

PUBLISH: DNP: YES

CLK RECORD: 7/10/2014 SUPPCLKRECORD:

RPT RECORD: 8/29/2014 SUPPRPTRECORD:

STATE BR: 12/1/2014 SUPP BR:

APP BR: 10/28/2014 PROSE BR:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD CCA # | 3fc *f5

PRO S£ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: _

JUDGE:

CCA IS:.

JUDGE:

f^L uCiAo4»i—

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN

ON

Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:.

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS:

ON

JUDGE:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAMMY DERONE LEGETTE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:04-cr-00795-TLW-1)

Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jammy Derone Legette, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jammy Derone Legette appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Legette, No. 4:04-cr-00795-TLW-1 (D.S.C. filed Dec. 10

and entered Dec. 14, 2010). 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
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF INTERMEDIATE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
COMPANY NAME                                            JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
------------                                            -----------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>
AUDIO CONSULTANTS (MACAU) COMPANY LIMITED...........    MACAU
EVI AUDIO (HONG KONG) LTD...........................    HONG KONG
EVI AUDIO FRANCE S.A.S. ............................    FRANCE
EVI AUDIO GMBH......................................    GERMANY
EVI AUDIO HOLDINGS (DEUTSCHLAND) GMBH...............    GERMANY
EVI AUDIO JAPAN, LTD................................    JAPAN
EX TC (UK) LIMITED..................................    ENGLAND
SAGUARO ELECTRONICA, S.A. DE C.V....................    MEXICO
SHUTTLESOUND LIMITED................................    ENGLAND
TECNOLOGIA ESPECIALIZADA EDD, S.A. DE C. V..........    MEXICO
TELEX COMMUNICATIONS (SEA) PTE, LTD.................    SINGAPORE
TELEX COMMUNICATIONS (UK) LTD.......................    ENGLAND
TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC...........................    DELAWARE, U.S.
TELEX COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, LTD.............    DELAWARE, U.S.
TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, LTD...........................    ONTARIO, CANADA
TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, S.A. DE C.V...................    MEXICO
TELEX EVI AUDIO (HONG KONG) LTD.....................    HONG KONG
TELEX EVI AUDIO (SHANGHAI) CO LTD...................    CHINA
TELEX HOLDINGS (UK) LTD.............................    ENGLAND
</TABLE>

                                       1
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 10-2393

JASON SPOONER,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

EEN, INC. AND DAN EGAN,

Defendants, Appellants.

___________________

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 5, 2011 is corrected

as follows:

On page 13, line 10, change

"note 1" to 

"note 2"
#### EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. et al. v. ACCUMULATOR CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 11, 1894.)

No. 131.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

E. H. Lewis and John R. Bennett, for defendants and appellants.

Betts, Hyde & Betts, for complainant and appellee.

Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges, and TOWNSEND, District Judge.

No opinion. Affirmed.
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3247 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2012 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1100 Town and Country Commons in Chesterfield, Missouri, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Matthew P. 

Pathenos Post Office Building’’. 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3247 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL MATTHEW P. PATHENOS 

2 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 1100 Town and Country Com5 mons in Chesterfield, Missouri, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Matthew P. Pathenos 

7 Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Mat12 thew P. Pathenos Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 15, 

2012. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>      5 
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
               FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
               ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                    13,119,208
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              8,011,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          22,911,068
<PP&E>                                    17,276,398
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            45,329,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      9,779,068
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       1,384
<OTHER-SE>                                32,621,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              45,329,936
<SALES>                                   23,304,358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          23,304,358
<CGS>                                     16,977,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             16,977,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          30,079,192
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (14,024,388)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (14,024,388)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                             (14,024,388)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 ($1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 ($1.04)

         

</TABLE>
SCPW-20-0000645

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

ANTHONY LE, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CASE NOS. 1PC151000287 and 1PC151001009)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ.,

and Circuit Judge Loo, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Anthony Le’s “Motion

to Release Non-Violent Community Custody Prisoner From Custody

with Special Terms and Conditions Amid Coronavirus COVID-19

BioTerrorism Pandemic,” which was filed as a petition for writ of

habeas corpus on October 26, 2020, and the record, it appears

that petitioner presents no special reason for this court to

invoke its jurisdiction and has alternative means to seek relief. 

See Oili v. Chang, 54 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976). 

Accordingly,

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-20-0000645

16-NOV-2020

01:38 PM

Dkt. 6 ODDP
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the

appellate court shall process the petition for writ of habeas

corpus without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 16, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Rhonda I.L. Loo

2
Employment
(Salary) Agreement


 


e-Marine
Co., Ltd.(The Company) and Seung HO Yang(The Employee) sign an annual salary agreement for the period between March 1st, 2017
and February 28th, 2018 and mutually pledge to fulfill faithfully


 


Article
1. Agreement Period


 


The
agreement is for the period between March 1st, 2017 and February 28th, 2018, total of twelve (12) months. If the date of entry
is later than the commencement date of this Agreement (March 1st), the salary amount noted in the agreement is for the period
between the date of entry and Feb 28th of the following year.


 


Article
2. Compensation Configuration


 


	Sort	 	Summary
	Basic
    Salary	 	-
    Basic monthly Salary
	Legal
    Allowance	 	-
    Overtime Allowance 
	Other
    Allowance	 	-
    Meals, childcare allowance, vehicle maintenance cost, organization management fee
	 	 	-
    Bonus


 


Article
3. Compensation Calculation


 


3.1
Annual salary for the period between March 1st, 2017 and February 28th, 2018 is 94,188,353 KRW which consists of basic salary,
legal allowance and other allowance.


 


3.2
Basic salary is 66,293,132 KRW and it is calculated as below


 


-
Basic Salary = Monthly Basic Salary X 12


 


3.3
Legal Allowance means overtime allowance and it is 26,265,221 KRW. It is calculated with the base of 40 hours of overtime per
a month.


 


-
Monthly Overtime = Monthly basic salary ÷ 209 hours x 1.5 x 40 hours


-
Legal Allowance = Monthly overtime x 12


 


3.4
Other Allowance is 1,200,000 KRW for lunch meals. The company may pay a prescribed allowance determined by The Company.


 


Article
4. Payment method and time


 


4.1
Total annual salary is divided by twelve and distributed per month.


 


4.2
Monthly salary is given on 25th date of each month. If the date is a holiday, the salary is paid on the day before.


 




    	 



     


    

 


Article
5. Salary Establishment and Adjustment


 


5.1
Salary is adjusted once a year on the date that The Company chooses.


 


5.2
Salary can be adjusted due to reasons such as promotion, change of position, etc.


 


Article
6. Confidentiality 


 


Contents
of the agreement between The Company and The Employee must be confidential. The Employee’s salary shall not be disclosed
to other employees.


 


Article
7. Termination


 


If
The Company finds The Employee to be harmful to The Company and/or finds The Employee damaging The Company, The Company has the
right to terminate the agreement.


 


Article
8. Other


 


Regarding
severance pay and vacation days compensation, The Employee agree to follow The Company’s Articles of Incorporation and other
related Korean laws.


 


In
order to prove the above, two copies of the agreement must be fully executed, and The Company and The Employee each will keep
one copy.