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

No. 15-7387.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Ronnie D. Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Shailika S. Kotiya, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie D. Rainey seeks to appeal district court’s order granting his motion to appoint counsel and to conduct a restitution hearing. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Rainey seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 10-KSB dated
May 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                         399,005
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,690
<INVENTORY>                                    405,566
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,368,149
<PP&E>                                      27,225,639
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,823,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,052,785
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,875,817
<BONDS>                                      6,334,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,099,174
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,381,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,052,785
<SALES>                                      2,525,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,256,598
<CGS>                                          912,983
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,414,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             348,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (568,485)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (251,613)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (316,872)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (316,872)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richarde Daniel CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6042.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 28, 2008.

*285Richarde Daniel Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Gleason, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, 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.

PER CURIAM:

Richarde Daniel Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 Carter 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.*
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 11670 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:07

- cr - 20009

- JEM

- 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus
STEPHANIE JOHNSON, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (December 5, 2012) Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-11670 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 1 of 32 Stephanie Johnson appeals her sentence of 120 months of imprisonment, which was imposed after the district court reduce d for the second time Johnson’s original sentence of 168 months of imprisonment. 18 U.S .C. § 3582(c)(2). On Johnson’s motion, t he district court sentenced her to the statutory minimum sentence in effect when she was first sentenced, but Johnson requested a greater reduction based on the lower minimum sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act o f
2010

. We affirm. Johnson’s argument for a further reduction of her sentence is foreclosed by

our recent decision in United States v. Berry , No. 12

– 11150 ( 11 th Cir

. Nov. 14,
2012 ) , that a defendant sentenced before the effective date of the Act i s ineligible to have h er sentence reduced. We h eld that the Act “ is not a guidelines amendment by the Sentencing Commission, but rather a statutory change by Congress, and

. . . does not serve as a basis for a

. . . sentence reduction ” under section 3582(c) (2)

. Id. , slip op. at 4. Even if the Act could serve as a basis to reduce a sentence , we h eld in Berry that the lower mandatory minimum sentences did not apply retroactively to offenders sentenced before the effective date of the
Act. Id. at 4

– 5. As ex plained by the Supreme Court in Dorsey v. United States , 567 U.S.

____ , 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) , “ application of the new minimums to pre

Act offenders sentenced after August 3 create [d] a new set of disparities , ” th at was an inevitable consequence of a ny “ new law changing sentences” and was

Case: 12-11670 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 2 of 33 consistent with “the ordinary practice . . . to apply new penalties to defendants not yet sentenced, while withholding that change from defendants already sentenced.” Id. at 2335. The district court did not err in deny ing Johnson’s motion to reduce her sentence below the statutory minimum in effect at her original sentencing

. We AFFIRM the denial of Johnson’s motion to reduce her sentence below the statutory minimum in effect at her original sentencing.
AFFIRMED . Case: 12-11670 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 3 of 3
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Anna Griffis, :

Petitioner : CASES CONSOLIDATED

:

v. : No. 273 C.D. 2019

:

Workers' Compensation Appeal Board :

(Albert Einstein Healthcare Network), :

Respondent :

Albert Einstein Medical Center, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 280 C.D. 2019

:

Workers' Compensation App eal Board :

(Griffis), :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, September 3, 2020

, upon consideration of Designated

Respondent ’s application for re argument

, and Designated Petitioner ’s answer in

response thereto, the application is denied.
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2014-1206.

#### O’Neal v. Kelly.

Lorain App. No. 14CA010580. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Appeals for Lorain County. Court of

Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal, it is ordered by the court application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed. that the

*1493It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to and filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals for Lorain County.
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   3-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          APR-30-1998
[PERIOD-END]                               JUL-31-1997
[CASH]                                         2370800
[SECURITIES]                                      8300
[RECEIVABLES]                                   517800
[ALLOWANCES]                                     19947
[INVENTORY]                                      66000
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                               3715700
[PP&E]                                         1270200
[DEPRECIATION]                                  861300
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                  732800
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                          2819900
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                          7000
[OTHER-SE]                                     2208800
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   7328000
[SALES]                                        1662000
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               1662000
[CGS]                                          2055200
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  2055200
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                 43100
[LOSS-PROVISION]                               2749200
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                               43100
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                2749200
[INCOME-TAX]                                   2749200
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                            2749200
[DISCONTINUED]                                     400
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                   2749600
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                   (.042)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                   (.042)
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Hudson Holding Corporation, (the "Company")
      on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith R. Knox,
      Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that, to my knowledge:




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




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





Date:
                June 26, 2008
            
            /s/
                Keith R. KnoxKeith
                R. KnoxPresident
                and Secretary(Principal
                Financial Accounting Officer)
2013-2028.

#### George v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2013-460. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals.

Upon consideration of the joint motion to remand to the Board of Tax Appeals to implement a settlement agreement, it is ordered by the court that the cause is remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to and filed with the Board of Tax Appeals.
EXHIBIT 99.1

          CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Right Management Consultants, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending 31 December 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard J. Pinola, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated: March 31, 2003                              /s/ RICHARD J. PINOLA
                                                   ---------------------
                                                        Richard J. Pinola
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Technology Assisted Group Solutions -TAGS - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bZ45M1800v\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/resolving-labor-management-disputes\/eservices-tags\/\">Technology Assisted Group Solutions -TAGS<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/resolving-labor-management-disputes\/eservices-tags\/embed\/#?secret=bZ45M1800v\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Technology Assisted Group Solutions -TAGS” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"bZ45M1800v\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              38
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       21
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    77
<PP&E>                                           1,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              630
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           483
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,403)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       528
<SALES>                                             69
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    69
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,655
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,593)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,593)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,593)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)


</TABLE>
exv4w6



 








EXHIBIT 4.6





 









 








FORM OF GUARANTEE




          The undersigned and its successors under the Indenture has irrevocably and unconditionally
guaranteed, on a senior secured basis to the extent set forth in the Indenture, dated as of August
23, 2006, by and among Broadview Networks Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), the Guarantors
and Bank of New York, as Trustee and Collateral Agent (the “Indenture”), (i) the due and
punctual payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Notes, whether at
maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, the due and punctual payment of interest on the overdue
principal of (including interest accruing at the then applicable rate provided in the Indenture,
the Notes, the Guarantees or any Collateral Agreement after the occurrence of any Event of Default
set forth in Section 6.01(6) or (7) of the Indenture, whether or not a claim for
post-filing or post-petition interest is allowed under applicable law following the institution of
a proceeding under bankruptcy, insolvency or similar law) and interest on the Notes, to the extent
lawful, and the due and punctual performance of all other obligations of the Company to the Holders
or the Trustee all in accordance with the terms set forth in Article Ten of the Indenture and (ii)
in case of any extension of time of payment or renewal of any Notes or any of such other
obligations, that the same will be promptly paid in full when due or performed in accordance with
the terms of the extension or renewal, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise.
Capitalized terms used herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Indenture unless otherwise
indicated.




          THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNDERSIGNED TO HOLDERS OF THE NOTES AND TO THE TRUSTEE PURSUANT TO THIS
NOTATION OF GUARANTEE (THE “GUARANTEE”) AND THE INDENTURE ARE EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN ARTICLE TEN OF
THE INDENTURE AND REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO THE INDENTURE FOR THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE GUARANTEE
AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURE TO WHICH THE GUARANTEE RELATES. EACH HOLDER OF A NOTE, BY
ACCEPTING THE SAME, (A) AGREES TO AND SHALL BE BOUND BY SUCH PROVISIONS AND (B) APPOINTS THE
TRUSTEE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR SUCH HOLDER FOR SUCH PURPOSES.




          This Guarantee shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New
York.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	[NAME OF GUARANTOR] 

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 




B-9
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       400
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>