alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Said M. KARARA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-11705

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 4, 2010.

Said M. Karara, Naples, FL, pro se.

*437John Schumann, Appellate Section-Tax Division-U.S. Dept, of Justice, Stephen Christopher Dowdell, Bruce R. Ellisen, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, A. Brian Albritton, David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before CARNES, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Said Karara requested an interest abatement from the Internal Revenue Service, which the IRS denied. Karara sought review of this denial in the district court. The district court dismissed his ease for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Karara now appeals, *pro se,*contending that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.

Congress has mandated that “[t]he Tax Court shall have jurisdiction” for the review of the IRS’ denial of a request for abatement. 26 U.S.C. § 6404(h)(1). The Supreme Court in *Hinck v. United States,*550 U.S. 501, 127 S.Ct. 2011, 167 L.Ed.2d 888 (2007), held that the Tax Court is the exclusive forum to review an abatement denial. *Id.*at 506, 127 S.Ct. at 2015. Here, because Karara challenges the IRS’ denial of his request for abatement under 26 U.S.C. § 6404, the Tax Court is the exclusive forum available to him. *See Id.*

In spite of that clear precedent, Karara argues that the district court is a proper forum because a standard IRS letter that he received states, “[i]f you do not wish to use the Appeals Office or disagree with its findings, you may be able to take your case to the U.S. Tax Court, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, or the U.S. District Court where you live.” A letter cannot confer jurisdiction that does not otherwise exist. *See Minnesota v. United States,*305 U.S. 382, 388-89, 59 S.Ct. 292, 295, 83 L.Ed. 235 (1939) (“Where jurisdiction has not been conferred by Congress, no officer of the United States has power to give to any court jurisdiction of a suit against the United States.”), *superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Morda v. Klein,*865 F.2d 782, 783 (6th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATIONS






I, Andrew
Leszczynski, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D required to be
filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K/A of SACO I
Trust 2006-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);




2. Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;




3. Based
on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;




4. I am
responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on
my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer
compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,
and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements; and




5. All of
the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in
this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
10-K/A.




In giving
the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me
by the following unaffiliated parties: EMC Mortgage Corporation, as servicer;
LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc., as vendor; American Security Insurance
Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and Safeco Financial Institution
Solutions, Inc. (affiliates of Assurant Inc.), each as vendor; GMAC Mortgage,
LLC, as servicer; and GMAC Bank, as vendor.




Date:
July 22, 2008




LaSalle
Bank National Association, as Master Servicer




/s/ Andrew
Leszczynski


Andrew
Leszczynski


First
Vice President
Document

Exhibit 10.4

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) made as of April 28, 2022 by and between GRIFFON CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter “Griffon”) and RONALD J. KRAMER (hereinafter “Kramer”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Griffon and Kramer entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of March 16, 2008, which Employment Agreement was amended pursuant to that certain Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement entered into between Griffon and Kramer as of February 3, 2011 and that certain Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement as of December 12, 2013 (hereinafter, collectively, the “Employment Agreement”).
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows, effective as of the date hereof.
1.Section 9(f)(ii) shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
“(ii) a pro-rata portion of the higher of (A) the actual bonus that Kramer received for the most recently completed Fiscal Year; or (B) the Target Bonus, to be paid as soon as administratively feasible following the date on which the release becomes effective, and in any event within ten (10) days thereafter; and”
2.The parties hereby agree that except as specifically provided in and modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement is in all other respects hereby ratified and confirmed.  This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware (without regard to principles of conflicts of law).  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts (including by facsimile, “portable document format,” or other electronic means) each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.


GRIFFON CORPORATION
By:     /s/ Seth L. Kaplan    
Name:    Seth L. Kaplan 
Title:    Senior Vice President




    /s/ Ronald J. Kramer    ____________
Ronald J. Kramer
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00206-CR

CARLOS DEMON HARRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-0424

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the clerk’s record and the supplemental clerk’s record in this case indicates 

that they contain “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license 

number, passport number, social security number, tax identification number or similar 

government-issued personal identification number.” TEX.R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(1). The clerk’s record 

and the supplemental clerk’s record include social security numbers. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless 

a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any 

appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper 

form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because the 

clerk’s record and the supplemental clerk’s record contain sensitive data, we order the clerk of this 

Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed clerk’s 

record and supplemental clerk’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: April 2, 2019
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marvin L. BINION, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-4094.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 8, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 30, 2010.

Jonathan Zucker, Law Office of Jonathan Zucker, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Bryan E. Foreman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Marvin Binion of two counts of making false statements under oath, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (2006). He was sentenced to concurrent twenty-one-month terms. He now appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to convict him on Count Two, which related to a statement Binion made under oath concerning a Bentley he had owned. We affirm.

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. *Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); *United States v. Cameron,*573 F.3d 179, 183 (4th Cir.2009). We must sustain a verdict supported by substantial evidence. *Glasser,*315 U.S. at 80, 62 S.Ct. 457. We do not review the credibility of witnesses, and we assume the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government. *United States v. Sun,*278 F.3d 302, 312 (4th Cir.2002).

At his sentencing in a separate criminal matter, there was a discussion about Bin-*848ion’s assets, including several vehicles that he had not included when completing a personal financial statement form. Bin-ion’s attorney informed the court that Bin-ion had sold the Bentley in the previous two months so that he would have money for living expenses. Binion, who was under oath, then stated, “I needed the money, so a friend of mine loaned me the money. I gave him the car and that was several months ago, and that’s the money I lived off.” Count Two charged that Binion knew this statement to be false because Binion had sold the vehicle for $68,000 just eight days prior to the hearing, and the proceeds from the sale had not been used for his living expenses during the previous months.

We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict Binion on Count Two. The evidence, especially the testimony of his probation officer, established Binion’s propensity to conceal and misrepresent his assets in an apparent effort to avoid a fine in the separate criminal matter. The jury could have concluded that the unsubstantiated story about a loan from an unidentified friend was but another in a series of lies about his finances.

We therefore affirm. 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.*
#### Michael BOGAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ROOMSTORE, INC., The, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 10-1558.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 3, 2010.

*877Michael Bogan, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Garrison Meyer, III, Leclair Ryan, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Bogan appeals the district court’s order denying relief in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Bogan v. Roomstore, Inc.,*No. 3:09-cv-00705-HEH (E.D.Va. Apr. 30, 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.*
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2970 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to remove the lifetime exemption 

from the prohibition on procurement of rolling stock from certain vehicle 

manufacturers for parties to executed contracts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2021 

Mr. CRAWFORD (for himself, Mr. GIMENEZ, Mr. MAST, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. 

PERRY, and Mr. ROUZER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to remove the lifetime exemption from the prohibition on procurement of 

rolling stock from certain vehicle manufacturers for parties to executed contracts. 

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 ‘‘Rolling Stock Protec5 tion Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2970 IH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF LIFETIME EXEMPTION FROM PROHI2 BITION ON PROCUREMENT OF ROLLING 

3 STOCK FOR PARTIES TO EXECUTED CON4 TRACTS. 

5 Section 5323(u)(5) of title 49, United State Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘Except as 

8 provided in subparagraph (C) and for a contract or 

9 subcontract that is not described in subparagraph 

10 (A)’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subpara11 graph (B)’’; 

12 (2) in subparagraph (C) by striking ‘‘Subpara13 graph (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘Subparagraph (A)’’; 

14 (3) by striking subparagraph (A); and 

15 (4) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and 

16 (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.2


 


EXHIBIT B-1


 


ALLONGE


 


This Allonge is made to that Incremental Note,
certificate A-1, (the “Note”), in the original principal sum of seventeen million five hundred thousand dollars ($17,500,000)
issued by Pareteum Corporation, a Delaware corporation, in favor of High Trail Investments SA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
under that certain Senior Secured Convertible Note due 2025, dated June 8, 2020, which has previously been amended by that certain Amendment
to Senior Secured Convertible Note Due 2025, dated as of July 18, 2020, that certain Forbearance Agreement dated as of November 30, 2020,
that certain Forbearance Agreement dated as of May 20, 2021, and that certain Amendment No. 4 to Senior Secured Convertible Note Due 2025
dated as of June 18, 2021, each between Pareteum Corporation and High Trail Investments SA LLC.


 


Pay to the order of Circles MVNE Pte. Ltd., WITHOUT
REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY OR RECOURSE WHATSOEVER, except as expressly set forth in the Note Sale Contract dated as of April 25, 2022,
made and entered into by and between the undersigned, as seller, and Circles MVNE Pte. Ltd., as purchaser and acknowledged and agreed
to by Pareteum Corporation, as issuer.


 


Dated as of April 25, 2022





 


	 	HIGH TRAIL INVESTMENTS SA LLC
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Eric Helenek
	 	Name: Eric Helenek
	 	Title: Authorized Signatory
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants – June 15, 2018","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"f3R6hQVSiw\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-june-15-2018\/\">Applicants – June 15, 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-june-15-2018\/embed\/#?secret=f3R6hQVSiw\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – June 15, 2018” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"f3R6hQVSiw\" 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"}
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 11175-025]

                    a.                     *Project Name and Number:*                     Crown Mill Hydroelectric Project No. 11175.                

                    b.                     *Project licensee:*                     Crown Hydro, LLC.                

                    c.                     *Date and Time of Teleconference:*                     Wednesday, December 6, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Central Standard Time.                

                    d.                     *FERC Contact:*                     Jennifer Polardino, (202) 502-6437 or                     *jennifer.polardino@ferc.gov*

                    e.                     *Purpose of Meeting:*                     Commission staff will hold a teleconference to discuss the status of consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for an application to amend the license of the unconstructed Crown Mill Hydroelectric Project. Crown Mill, LLC (licensee) proposes to move the location of the project's powerhouse about 250 feet north to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) lands within the campus of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam. Crown Mill, LLC also proposes to construct a new tailrace tunnel instead of connecting to an existing tunnel. The project would be located on the Mississippi River, in the downtown area of the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota.                

                    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested entities are invited to participate in the teleconference. Please call or email Jennifer Polardino at (202) 502-6437 or                     *Jennifer.polardino@ferc.gov*                     by Thursday, November 30, 2017, to RSVP and to receive the teleconference call-in information.                

Dated: October 31, 2017.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-24142 Filed 11-6-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Allen YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-7783.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 27, 2008.

Curtis Allen Young, Appellant pro se. Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*278PER CURIAM:

Curtis Allen Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for certificate of appealability on the court’s denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and 59(e) motions, and construing his supplemental motion for certificate of appealability as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Young’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Young’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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.*