alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7684

DAVID S. COUSINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

LIEUTENANT MURRAY; SERGEANT TUCK; SERGEANT

BASKET; OFFICER WILDER; OFFICER DUKE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-93-761-5-H)

Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David S. Cousins, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cousins v. North

Carolina Dep't of Corrections, No. CA-93-761-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 16,

1995). 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. The motion

for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), theundersigned, Issachar Gerlitz, Chief Executive Officer of Ness Technologies,Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to hisknowledge, that:

The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 of the Company(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| Date:  | May 10, 2007 |   |   | /s/ ISSACHAR GERLITZ    |
|--------|--------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |         |   |   | Issachar Gerlitz        |
|   |         |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 4.5

       

      

      

       

      

      

       

      	
              Number of certificate

            	 	
              Number of shares

            
	
              1

            	 	 
	 	 	 


      

      

       

      Waldencast plc

       

      

      

       

      This is to certify that                 of                 is the registered holder of                 Class A Ordinary shares of US$0.0001 each being fully
        paid in the above-named company, subject to the memorandum and articles of association of the company.

       

      

      

       

      Given by the company on                2022

       

      

      

       

      	 	 	 
	
              Director

            	 	
              Director/ Secretary
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Presidential Documents 51969 

Notice of November 6, 2017 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran 

On November 14, 1979, in Executive Order 12170, the President declared 

a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) to deal with the 

unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, 

and economy of the United States. 

Our relations with Iran have not yet normalized, and the process of implementing the agreements with Iran, dated January 19, 1981, is ongoing. For 

this reason, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, and 

the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue 

in effect beyond November 14, 2017. In accordance with section 202(d) 

of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 

1 year the national emergency with respect to Iran declared in Executive 

Order 12170. 

The emergency declared in Executive Order 12170 is distinct from the 

emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 on March 15, 1995. This 

renewal, therefore, is distinct from the emergency renewal of January 13, 

2017. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

November 6, 2017. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24465 

Filed 11–7–17; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3295–F8–P 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PRES DOCSTrump.EPS</GPH>
#### E.K. WADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hilda L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-16156.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

E.K. Wade, Walnut Creek, CA, pro se.

Melissa Katherine Brown, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*289MEMORANDUM ***

E.K. Wade appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging various employment-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Leong v. Potter,*347 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

As Wade concedes in his reply brief filed on January 13, 2010, his claims based on alleged adverse actions that occurred prior to June 30, 2003, are time-barred. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment as to these claims.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wade’s timely discrimination and retaliation claims because Wade failed to raise a triable issue as to whether his employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the employment decisions were pretextual, including whether the actions were taken against him because of disability-related conduct. *See id.*at 1124-25 (discrimination); *Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA,*339 F.3d 792, 801 (9th Cir.2003) (retaliation); *cf. Humphrey v. Memorial Hosps. Ass’n,*239 F.3d 1128, 1131, 1139-40 (9th Cir.2001) (employee raised triable issue as to whether she was terminated based on her disability because she presented evidence that she was terminated for attendance problems related to her disability).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wade’s hostile work environment claim because Wade failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the conduct to which he was subjected was (1) based on his race, age, or disability; or (2) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. *See Ma-natt,*339 F.3d at 798 (setting forth requirements for hostile work environment claim). Because Wade did not establish a hostile work environment claim, he did not meet the higher standard of a constructive discharge claim. *See id.*at 804.

The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Wade’s accommodation claim because Wade failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he was entitled to an accommodation for his alleged disability or whether the accommodation he sought was reasonable. *See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,*302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir.2002) (an employer is not required to provide the accommodation that the employee requests or prefers, but need only provide a reasonable accommodation).

Wade’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

***

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/catiemegan\/","title":"Acting Chairman Khouri & Commissioner Dye Address Transportation Legal Professionals","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"AWyuLNBg7J\"><a href=\"\/acting-chairman-khouri-commissioner-dye-address-transportation-legal-professionals\/\">Acting Chairman Khouri & Commissioner Dye Address Transportation Legal Professionals<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/acting-chairman-khouri-commissioner-dye-address-transportation-legal-professionals\/embed\/#?secret=AWyuLNBg7J\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Acting Chairman Khouri & Commissioner Dye Address Transportation Legal Professionals” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"AWyuLNBg7J\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-51196

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANK KRIEGBAUM,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-1400-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frank Kriegbaum pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing an 

unregistered firearm and was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment. On 

appeal, Kriegbaum argued that the district court erroneously calculated both 

his criminal history score and his offense level, which was based on an 

allegedly erroneous determination that Kriegbaum’s Texas robbery conviction 

qualified as a crime of violence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 

 

* 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 19, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-51196 Document: 00514080505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2017
No. 16-51196

2

Upon the Government’s concession that Kriegbaum’s criminal history score 

was incorrect, this court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. 

On remand, the district court imposed a sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment. 

Kriegbaum again appeals, arguing that the district court incorrectly 

calculated his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 because his Texas 

robbery conviction is not a crime of violence. For purposes of § 2K2.1, the term 

“crime of violence” has the same meaning as in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (2015) and 

Application Note 1 of the Commentary to § 4B1.2. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.1)

(2015). Kriegbaum contends that Texas robbery is a crime of violence only 

under the residual clause of former § 4B1.2(a)(2), which is unconstitutionally 

vague because it contains the same language as the provision of the Armed 

Career Criminal Act invalidated for vagueness in Johnson v. United States, 

135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). 

In Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 897 (2017), the Supreme 

Court held that “the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a due process 

vagueness challenge” and that therefore, “[former] § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause 

is not void for vagueness.” Beckles forecloses Kriegbaum’s only argument on 

appeal. Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion for summary 

affirmance. AFFIRM the judgment of the district court, and DENY as moot the 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief.

 Case: 16-51196 Document: 00514080505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2017
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the
      undersigned, Ofer Segev, Chief Financial Officer of Ness Technologies, Inc.,
      a
      Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge,
      that:





The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008 of
      the
      Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained
      in
      the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.







Date:
            August
                7, 2008
            /s/OFER
                SEGEVOfer
                SegevChief
                Financial Officer
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                           ( print page 52298)                        Rules of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued Technical Bulletin 2017-2,                     *Assigning Assets to Component Reporting Entities.*

                    The Technical Bulletin is available on the FASAB Web site at                     *http://www.fasab.gov/​accounting-standards/​*. 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, Pub. L. 92-463.

Dated: November 1, 2017.

Wendy M. Payne,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2017-24510 Filed 11-9-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
#### Vardan KARAPETYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72917.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*674Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 2, 2008.

Yeznik O. Kazandjian, for Petitioners.

Lisa W. Edwards, Mark L. Gross, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division/Appellate Section, Oil, David V. Bernal, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Vardan Karapetyan and his family, citizens of Armenia, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s order denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *El Himri v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 932, 936 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Karapetyan’s asylum claim because the government established changed country conditions in Armenia, rebutting the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution, *see Kumar v. INS,*204 F.3d 931, 934 (9th Cir.2000), and because he failed to establish that the 1993, 1994, and 1997 incidents were on account of his Pentecostal religion, *see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), *Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cm. 2004).

Petitioners necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claim because they failed to show that it is more likely than not that they would suffer torture if returned to Armenia. *See El Himri,*378 F.3d at 938.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### David JENKINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden McKither BODISON, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 10-6568.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 10, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 17, 2010.

David Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jenkins 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 are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

October 12, 2005 

 

E R R A T A

Appeal No. 05-3134

JONES V MSPB

Decided: October 12, 2005 Nonprecedential Opinion 

Please make the following changes: 

Page 1, at the end of the first paragraph, after “affirm.”, insert a carriage return 

before the roman numeral “I”. 

Page 2, line 5: after the word “Board”, change “ones” to –- “Jones”.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         103,450
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,632
<PP&E>                                         103,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                (30,071)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 248,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,706
<BONDS>                                         20,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           425
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   248,954
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,596
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,044)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,044)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,044)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)


</TABLE>