alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1238. SIFUR RAHAMAN v. THE STATE.

In 2018, Sifur Rahaman was convicted of aggravated battery. He filed a timely

motion for new trial, which the trial court denied in November 2020. The following

year, Rahaman filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal, asserting that he had not

received notice of the denial of his motion for new trial until July 2021. The trial

court granted Rahaman an out-of-time appeal, and he filed this appeal. 

The Georgia Supreme Court recently eliminated the judicially created out-oftime-appeal procedure in trial courts. Cook v. State, ___ Ga. ___ (5) (Case No.

S21A1270, decided March 15, 2022) (applying the holding “to all cases that are

currently on direct review or otherwise not yet final”). In light of Cook, Rahaman has

filed a motion to remand this case to the superior court to determine whether he

received timely notice of the denial of his motion for new trial and, if not, to allow the

trial court to re-enter the order denying his motion for new trial. See, e.g., McCurley

v. State, 345 Ga. App. 856, 857 (815 SE2d 188) (2018). 

The trial court’s order granting the motion for out-of-time appeal is hereby

VACATED, Rahaman’s motion to remand is hereby GRANTED, and this case is

REMANDED to the trial court to determine if Rahaman received timely notice of the

denial of his motion for new trial. On remand, the trial court is DIRECTED to enter 

May 02, 2022
an order dismissing the motion for an out-of-time appeal. See Rutledge v. State, ___

Ga. ___ (Case No. S21A1036, decided March 15, 2022). 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/02/2022
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1855 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1855

    Making appropriations for the House of Representatives Members' 
 Personal Physician for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 1993

 Mr. Inglis of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    Making appropriations for the House of Representatives Members' 
 Personal Physician for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums 
are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, namely.

                      members' personal physician

    No funds shall be appropriated, reprogrammed, used, obligated, or 
otherwise provided to continue the Members' Personal Physician during 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994.

                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10551

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-36-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Anthony

Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 15, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-10551 Document: 00511382065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                          22,546
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                       346
<INVENTORY>                                    128,810
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               213,911
<PP&E>                                       1,322,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                 372,175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,348,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          200,642
<BONDS>                                        593,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     343,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,348,392
<SALES>                                        786,059
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               786,059
<CGS>                                          695,419
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  814,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,568)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   248
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (56,243)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (26,627)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,938)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,938)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Description of AmeriGas Propane, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Description of AmeriGas Propane, Inc. Supplemental 
 Executive Retirement Plan, Amended July 24, 2006

 On July 24, 2006, the Board of Directors of AmeriGas Propane, Inc., the general partner of AmeriGas Partners, L.P. (the “General Partner”)
approved an amendment to the AmeriGas Propane, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (as amended, the “AmeriGas SERP”). The amended AmeriGas SERP became effective July 24, 2006 and is applicable to the General Partner’s named
executive officers employed by the General Partner. 
 The AmeriGas SERP provides supplemental retirement benefits to certain senior level employees of the
General Partner, including Eugene V.N. Bissell, William D. Katz and Jerry E. Sheridan. The AmeriGas SERP provides that the General Partner shall establish an account for each participant in the AmeriGas SERP to which shall be credited annually an
amount equal to 5% of his or her maximum recognizable compensation under Section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code and 10% of his or her compensation, if any, in excess of such maximum recognizable compensation. In addition, effective for
amounts forfeited in 2005 and subsequent years, in the event that any portion of the employer matching contribution allocated to the participant under the AmeriGas Propane, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the “AmeriGas 401(k) Plan”) with respect
to a prior plan year is forfeited to satisfy the nondiscrimination requirements of section 401(k), 401(m) or 401(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, the General Partner shall credit to his or her account under the AmeriGas SERP, in the year in which
the forfeiture occurs, an amount that is equal to the forfeited employer matching contributions, adjusted for earnings and losses as provided under the AmeriGas 401(k) Plan to the date forfeited. Benefits payable under the AmeriGas SERP shall be
paid as soon as practicable after a participant’s retirement or termination for a reason other than Termination For Cause (as defined in the AmeriGas SERP). Except in the case of a change in control, accrual of benefits under the AmeriGas SERP
shall immediately cease upon a participant’s retirement or termination of employment with the General Partner.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                            AMENDMENT NUMBER THIRTEEN
           TO THE METLIFE PLAN FOR TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR OFFICERS

     The METLIFE PLAN FOR TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR OFFICERS (the "Plan") is
hereby amended as follows:

     1.   The Plan is hereby amended by adding the following Section:

     "Section 10.3 2006-2007 MetLife Retirement Plans Transaction.
     Notwithstanding any other terms the Plan to the contrary:

     (a) An Employee who, as of June 26, 2006, spent substantially all of his or
     her time conducting or supporting the MetLife Retirement Plan business, and
     who as of that date spent a substantial portion of his or her time in
     internal or external wholesaling, external customer relationship
     management, management of wholesaling or external customer relationship
     management, defined benefits operations, or sales administrative assistance
     (as defined more specifically as a "Secured Employee" under the terms of
     and as defined in the Asset Purchase Agreement between the Company and
     certain of its Affiliates and Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company
     regarding the MetLife Retirement Plans business (the "MRP Asset Purchase
     Agreement")), and whose employment is discontinued in 2006 or 2007 due to
     job elimination as a result of the transactions contemplated by the MRP
     Asset Purchase Agreement, shall not eligible for Severance Pay or
     Outplacement Assistance but shall otherwise be considered a Job Elimination
     Participant under the Plan for purposes of benefits provided under certain
     other benefit plans and may be offered a Separation Agreement without
     Severance Pay or Outplacement Assistance for purposes of such benefit that
     are contingent on a final Separation Agreement.

     (b) Section 1.4.05(b) of this Plan shall not apply to An Employee who, as
     of June 26, 2006, spent substantially all of his or her time conducting or
     supporting the MetLife Retirement Plan business (as defined more
     specifically as a "Dedicated Employee," under

<PAGE>

     the terms of and as defined in the MRP Asset Purchase Agreement) but is not
     subject to Section 10.3(a) of this Plan, whose employment is discontinued
     in 2006 or 2007 due to job elimination as a result of the transactions
     contemplated by MRP Asset Purchase Agreement:

     2.   This amendment shall be effective as of June 26, 2006.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has caused this
amendment to be executed by an officer thereunto duly authorized on the date(s)
noted below the officer's signature.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


By: /s/ Debra Capolarello
    ---------------------------------
Date: 8/7/06
      -------------------------------
    /s/ Judith N. Eidenberg
-------------------------------------
Witness


                                       2
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quiksilver, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven L. Brink,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Steven L. Brink

Steven L. Brink
Chief Financial Officer
January 27, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9658-9659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3371]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD11-01-002]
RIN 2115-AE46


Special Local Regulations: Parker International Waterski Marathon

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of implementation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice implements 33 CFR 100.1102, Marine Events on the 
Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate 
Dam (Parker, Arizona), for the Parker International Waterski Marathon. 
The race will consist of power driven vessels ranging in size from 19-
26 feet for a waterski competition. These regulations will be effective 
on that portion of the Colorado River beginning at Bluewater Marina in 
Parker, AZ, and extending approximately 10 miles to La Paz County Park. 
Notice of Implementation of 33 CFR 100.1102 is necessary to control 
vessel traffic in the regulated areas during the event to ensure the 
safety of participants and spectators.
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 100.1102(c), Commanding Officer, Coast Guard 
Activities San Diego, is designated Patrol Commander for this event; he 
has the authority to delegate this responsibility to any Coast Guard, 
public, state, local law enforcement, and/or sponsor provided vessels. 
For this event, the Coast Guard has designated the Colorado River 
Indian Tribe Police as Patrol Commander.

EFFECTIVE DATES: This section is effective from 8 a.m. (MST) until 4:30 
p.m. (MST) on March 10, 2001 through March 11, 2001. If the event 
concludes prior to the scheduled termination date and/or time, the 
Colorado River Indian Tribe Police will cease enforcement of this 
section.

[[Page 9659]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Nicole Lavorgna, U. S. 
Coast Guard MSO San Diego, San Diego, California; Telephone: (619) 683-
6495.
    Discussion of Implementation. These Special Local Regulations 
permit Coast Guard or their designated representative control of vessel 
traffic in order to ensure the safety of spectator and participant 
vessels. In accordance with the regulations in 33 CFR 100.1102, no 
persons or vessels shall block, anchor, or loiter in the regulated 
area; nor shall any person or vessel transit through the regulated 
area, or otherwise impede the transit of participant or official patrol 
vessels in the regulated area, unless cleared for such entry by or 
through an official patrol vessel acting on behalf of the Patrol 
Commander.

    Dated: January 30, 2001.
D.W. Kunkel,
U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. 01-3371 Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
EXHIBIT
21.1





LIST OF
SUBSIDIARIES





TechTeam
Capital Group, L.L.C.


TechTeam
Cyntergy, L.L.C.


TechTeam
Global Canada, Inc.


TechTeam
Government Solutions, Inc.


Sytel,
Inc.


TechTeam
Global NV/SA


TechTeam
Global Ltd.


TechTeam
Global GmbH


TechTeam
Global AB


TechTeam
SQM AB


TechTeam
Global SRL


TechTeam
Akela SRL


TechTeam
Asia Pacific (Private) Ltd.


TechTeam
Global Sp. z o.o.


TechTeam
Global SAS


TechTeam GlobalSàrl


TechTeam
Global Portugal Lda


TechTeam
Australia Pty Ltd.


Onvaio
LLC


Onvaio
Asia Services, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                              1,419
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      48,434
<ALLOWANCES>                       (1,346)
<INVENTORY>                        68,465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  140,878
<PP&E>                            135,971
<DEPRECIATION>                    (69,225)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    330,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              96,753
<BONDS>                           245,007
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           18,797
<OTHER-SE>                        (75,184)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      330,922
<SALES>                           309,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  309,511
<CGS>                             220,589
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     220,589
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      252
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 25,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (20,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                       12,663
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (33,068)
<DISCONTINUED>                    (16,847)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    (8,455)
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (58,370)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (3.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (3.41)


</TABLE>
#### Oscar GONZALEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-75123.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 30, 2010.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Oscar Gonzalez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Mielewczyk v. Holder,*575 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Gonzalez-Lopez is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction for violation of California Penal Code § 273.5 is categorically a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)®. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C); *Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder,*611 F.3d 1080, 1083 (9th Cir.2010); *see also*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B) (listing permissible documents for proof of conviction).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2


THERMA-WAVE, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Boris Lipkin, in my capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of Therma-Wave, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(Therma-Wave), and in connection with the
Quarterly Report of Therma-Wave on Form 10-Q/A for the period
ended December 30, 2001 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), hereby
certify that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                        
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1.     The Report fully
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.                                       
|
| | 2.     The information
    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
    Therma-Wave.



| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ BORIS LIPKIN                         
| |                                          
| | Boris Lipkin                             
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

May 5, 2003



---



##### 



THERMA-WAVE, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, L. Ray Christie, in my capacity as Chief
Financial Officer of Therma-Wave, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(Therma-Wave), and in connection with the
Quarterly Report of Therma-Wave on Form 10-Q/A for the
period ended December 30, 2001 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), hereby certify that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                        
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1.     The Report fully
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.                                       
|
| | 2.     The information
    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
    Therma-Wave.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ L. RAY CHRISTIE    
| |                        
| | L. Ray Christie        
| | Chief Financial Officer

May 5, 2003