alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane Bashir SUMAN, Monie Rahman, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 10-966-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 5, 2011.

*87Shane Bashir Suman, Monie Rahman, Toronto, Canada, Appellants, pro se.

David M. Becker, Mark D. Cahn, Jacob H. Stillman, Christopher Paik, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, guido calabresi, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Shane Bashir Suman and Monie Rahman, proceeding *pro se,*appeal the district court’s judgment granting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s summary judgment motion in its insider trading action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review *de novo*an order granting summary judgment and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” *Terry v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” *Davis v. State of New York,*316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Having conducted an independent and *de novo*review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. Whatever force Appellants’ defense, proffered in Suman’s affidavit, might have had, its last-minute arrival at the courthouse, coupled with their prior refusal to submit to depositions, renders it too weak to generate a genuine issue of material fact in light of the overwhelming and undisputed evidence against them. Additionally, Appellants did not raise any meaningful or substantive challenges to the expert report prepared by Steven L. Rogers.

We have considered Appellants’ other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that under the authority and in furtherance of the objectives of 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Comptroller General of the United States (the sponsors) have agreed to continue an advisory committee to consider and recommend accounting standards and principles for the federal government. Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

Authority:Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463.

Dated: October 5, 2017.

Wendy M. Payne,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2017-22075 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
Exhibit 13.1

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of

the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Sims Metal
Management Limited (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2012 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form
20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |  |                                                                 
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Daniel W. Dienst                                            
| |  | Daniel W. Dienst Group
Chief Executive Officer  October 12, 2012
| | 
| |  | /s/ Robert C. Larry                                             
| |  | Robert C. Larry Group Chief
Financial Officer  October 12, 2012 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 20-F or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 29 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 29

To amend the definition of ``homeless person'' under the McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance Act to include certain homeless children and youth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2009

  Mrs. Biggert (for herself, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Davis of 
   Kentucky, Mr. Carson of Indiana, and Mr. Hinojosa) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
Services, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the definition of ``homeless person'' under the McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance Act to include certain homeless children and youth.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homeless Children and Youth Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION.

    Subsection (a) of section 103 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the paragraph at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3)(A) a child or youth who has been verified as 
        homeless, as such term is defined in section 725(2)(B)(i) of 
        the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
        11434a(2)(B)(i)), by a local educational agency homeless 
        liaison, designated pursuant to section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the 
        McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
        11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)), and the family of such child or youth;
            ``(B) a youth verified as homeless by the director of a 
        program funded under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 
        U.S.C. 5701 et seq.), or a designee of the director;
            ``(C) a child verified as homeless under section 602 of the 
        Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401) by 
        the director or the designee of such program, and the family of 
        such child; and
            ``(D) a child verified as homeless under section 637 of the 
        Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9832) by the director or designee of 
        such program, and the family of such child.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benjamin Johnson, Appellant.

[670 NYS2d 118]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered December 22, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The trial court erred in refusing to dismiss one prospective juror for cause when he did not unequivocally state that he would not be influenced by his feelings about the specific facts of the case and that he would render an impartial verdict *(see, People v Blyden, 55*NY2d 73). Because the defense counsel then exercised a peremptory challenge against this prospective juror and eventually exhausted his allotment of peremptory challenges, the defendant’s conviction must be reversed *(see, People v Birch,*215 AD2d 573). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 282 

To prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay 

adjustment in 2010. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2009 

Mr. SESTAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prevent Members of Congress from receiving any 

automatic pay adjustment in 2010. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Delay Congressional 

5 Pay Raise Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NO AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS 

7 OF CONGRESS IN 2010. 

8 For purposes of the provision of law amended by sec9 tion 704(a)(2)(B) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 282 IH

1 U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of 

2 title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to have 

3 taken effect in fiscal year 2010 in the rates of pay under 

4 the General Schedule. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-24-00005-CR 

 

JOE HERRERA, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 54th District Court 

McLennan County, Texas1 

Trial Court No. 2022-2001-C2, Counts I & II, Honorable Alan Bennett, Presiding 

June 28, 2024 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Joe Herrera, appeals his convictions for assault family violence2 and 

concurrent sentences of forty years’ confinement. Appellant’s brief was originally due 

February 28, 2024, but we granted Appellant’s appointed counsel three extensions to file 

a brief due to his caseload. By letter of May 7, 2024, we admonished counsel that no 

1 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket 

equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01.
2

further extensions would be granted and that failure to file a brief by May 29 would result 

in the appeal being abated and the cause remanded to the trial court for further 

proceedings without further notice. To date, Appellant’s counsel has not filed a brief or 

had any further communication with this Court.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2),(3). Upon remand, the trial court shall 

determine the following:

(1) whether Appellant still desires to prosecute the appeal;

(2) whether Appellant is indigent;

(3) why a timely appellate brief has not been filed on Appellant’s behalf;

(4) whether Appellant’s counsel has abandoned the appeal;

(5) whether Appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel;

(6) whether new counsel should be appointed; and

(7) if Appellant desires to continue the appeal, the date the Court may expect 

Appellant’s brief to be filed.

The trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a 

supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this Court by August 27, 2024. 

If it is determined that Appellant desires to proceed with the appeal, is indigent, and has 

been denied the effective assistance of counsel, the trial court may appoint him new 

counsel; the name, address, email address, telephone number, and state bar number of 

any newly appointed counsel shall be included in the aforementioned findings.
3

Should Appellant’s counsel file a brief on or before July 29, 2024, he is directed to 

immediately notify the trial court of the filing, in writing, whereupon the trial court shall not 

be required to take any further action.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Bruno Wu Zheng, Chief Executive Officer of Sun NewMedia, Inc., certify that

1.      I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sun New Media, Inc.;

2.      Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.      The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e)and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)       designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport was being prepared;

(b)       evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)       disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.      The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

(a)       all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)       any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| /s/ Bruno Wu Zheng                                              |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Bruno Wu Zheng,  Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
| Date: February  14, 2007                                        |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3050 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3050

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitations 
   on the amount excluded from the gross estate with respect to land 
             subject to a qualified conservation easement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2009

 Mr. Blumenauer (for himself, Mr. Cantor, and Mr. Kind) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitations 
   on the amount excluded from the gross estate with respect to land 
             subject to a qualified conservation easement.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Family Farm and Ranchland 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT EXCLUDED FROM THE GROSS 
              ESTATE WITH RESPECT TO LAND SUBJECT TO A QUALIFIED 
              CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

    (a) Increase in Dollar Limitation on Exclusion.--Paragraph (3) of 
section 2031(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
exclusion limitation) is amended by striking ``the exclusion limitation 
is'' and all that follows and inserting ``the exclusion limitation is 
$5,000,000.''.
    (b) Increase in Percentage of Value of Land Which Is Excludable.--
Paragraph (2) of section 2031(c) of such Code (relating to applicable 
percentage) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``40 percent'' and inserting ``50 
        percent'', and
            (2) by striking ``2 percentage points'' and inserting ``2.5 
        percentage points''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to the estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
Ex10120141205






Exhibit 10.1





December 3, 2014


Mr. Scott D. Peters
c/o Healthcare Trust of America, Inc.
16435 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 320
Scottsdale, AZ  85254


		
	Re:
	Extension of Amended And Restated Employment Agreement




Dear Scott:


Reference is made to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between you and Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. (the “Company”), dated as of January 3, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement”).  This letter is to confirm our agreement, pursuant to Section 2 of the Employment Agreement, that the term of the Employment Agreement will be extended by one year so that the Employment Period (as defined in the Employment Agreement) will be scheduled to end on January 1, 2018 (subject to earlier termination as provided in Section 7 of the Employment Agreement). 
Except as expressly set forth herein, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its current terms.  This letter may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
If this letter accurately sets forth our understanding with respect to the foregoing matters, please indicate your acceptance by signing this letter and returning it to the undersigned.  This letter shall be a binding agreement between the Company and you.  A duplicate copy of this letter is included for your records.                      	
					
	 
	 
	Healthcare Trust of American, Inc.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Robert A. Milligan
	 

	 
	 
	Its:
	Chief Financial Officer
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Accepted and Agreed:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Scott D. Peters
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Scott D. Peters
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Date: December 3, 2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose L. DiLenola, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 535]

—Judgment *1133unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and tampering with physical evidence (Penal Law § 215.40 [2]). Although defendant contends that his videotaped confession should have been suppressed, that evidence was not introduced at trial and did not contribute to defendant’s conviction. Defendant abandoned a pretrial motion to suppress evidence of a conversation with his aunt overheard by the police. He did not obtain a judicial determination of that motion and did not object when the People presented proof of that conversation at trial, and he used the conversation as the cornerstone of his defense that he did not kill the victim intentionally. “[C]ourts are loath to second-guess a litigant’s ‘highly judgmental function’ of deciding when and to what end to assert a right or to forego reliance on it” *(People v Rodriguez,*50 NY2d 553, 557-558). In any event, we reject the contention of defendant that the conversation was privileged *{see, People v Harrell,*87 AD2d 21, *affd*59 NY2d 620; *Matter of A. & M.,*61 AD2d 426). No privilege may attach to “communications made in the presence of [a] third partly], whose presence is known to the defendant” (P*eople v Harris,*57 NY2d 335, 343, *cert denied*460 US 1047; *see, People v Tesh,*124 AD2d 843, 844, *lv denied*69 NY2d 750). Furthermore, the contention that admissions made during that conversation were the fruit of prior illegal police conduct was not preserved for our review by appropriate argument at the suppression hearing *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Mota,*243 AD2d 316; *People v Brimage,*214 AD2d 454, *lv denied*86 NY2d 732; *People v Sutton,*111 AD2d 197, *lv denied*66 NY2d 768).

Defendant further contends that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct. Defense counsel did not object to several instances of the alleged misconduct, thereby failing to preserve those instances for our review *{see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we conclude that none of the alleged instances of misconduct was so egregious as to have denied defendant a fair trial (see, *People v Plant,*138 AD2d 968, *lv denied*71 NY2d 1031). (Appeal from Judgment of Livingston County Court, Cicoria, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Law-ton, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000546

27-SEP-2013

08:39 AM