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

No. 10-7161.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2010.

*702Devon L. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Devon L. Alexander appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to dismiss his indictment and motion to reconsider. The district court also considered Alexander’s motion as one for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 38. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Alexander,*No. 4:06-cr-00118-WDK-TEM-1 (E.D.Va. June 23, 2010 & July 13, 2010). We deny Alexander’s motion to compel. 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,455,549
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,505,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (381,595)
<INVENTORY>                                 16,165,220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,597,726
<PP&E>                                      15,350,817
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,783,231)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,266,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,390,934
<BONDS>                                      4,432,633
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,513
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,399,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                78,266,937
<SALES>                                     18,815,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,836,235
<CGS>                                       10,115,662
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,854,533
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,977
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (162,555)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (162,555)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (162,555)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*July 25, 2014*

[Cite as *07/25/2014 Case Announcements,*2014-Ohio-3247.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2013-1951.

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

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2013-607. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals.

Upon consideration of appellants’ motion to strike appellees’ brief, it is ordered by the court that the motion is denied. It is further ordered that appellants may file a reply brief within 20 days of the date of this entry.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-409 | October 9, 2018 Page 1 of 2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Jeffrey A. Baldwin

Tyler D. Helmond

Voyles Vaiana Lukemeyer Baldwin 

 & Webb

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Stephen R. Creason

Chief Counsel for Appeals and 

Deputy Attorney General

F. Aaron Negangard

Chief Deputy Attorney General

Justin F. Roebel

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Obed Nyarenchi,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Respondent

October 9, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-PC-409

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Lisa Borges, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G04-1501-PC-2906

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] Obed Nyarenchi appeals the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief that 

he filed after a jury found him guilty of attempted murder and burglary for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-409 | October 9, 2018 Page 2 of 2

breaking into a house in Speedway and attacking another man with a hatchet 

and a hammer. His trial attorneys asserted but then withdrew a defense of 

mental disease or defect. See Ind. Code § 35-41-3-6(a) (“A person is not 

responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental 

disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct 

at the time of the offense.”). Nyarenchi contends that the attorneys should have 

done more to develop that defense and then presented it at trial, and he asserts 

that their failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. To 

prevail on his ineffective-assistance claim, Nyarenchi had to show not only that 

the failure to develop and present a mental-disease-or-defect defense amounted 

to “deficient performance” but also that he was prejudiced by that failure, i.e., 

that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have found him not 

guilty if his attorneys had developed and presented the defense. See Woods v. 

State, 701 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind. 1998), reh’g denied. On appeal, Nyarenchi states 

that he “has met this burden.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. But that is the extent of 

his argument. He does not direct us to a single piece of evidence that would 

have supported a mental-disease-or-defect defense. In fact, his three-sentence 

argument on this issue does not include any citations to the record, in violation 

of Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (“Each contention must be supported by 

citations to . . . the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]”). 

As such, he has not shown that the trial court erred by denying his petition.

[2] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Lee GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6122.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Leslie M. Maye, Office of the United States Attorney, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Danny Lee Green, FCI — Forrest City Low Satellite Camp, Forrest City, AR, pro se.

Before BRISCOE, Chief Circuit Judge, TACHA, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

*268ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

DEANELL REECE TACHA, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

In 1989, Danny Lee Green pleaded guilty in federal district court to nine criminal counts relating to a heroin distribution conspiracy. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of twenty years each on two of the counts and thirty years each on the remaining seven counts. In the twenty-two years since that time, Mr. Green has submitted myriad filings challenging his convictions and sentences. Most relevant to this appeal, on March 2, 2010, he submitted a “Motion to Invoke Supervisory Powers to Dismiss the Indictment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Title 18 USCS 3582 and 3553a.” The district court denied the motion as untimely on March 3. On April 30, he filed a “Motion to Amend to the Above Pending Certified Mail Dated February 18, 2010, and Notice that the Government Violated Title 18 USCS § 1623 et. seq.,” which the district court denied as incomprehensible on May 6.

On May 17, Mr. Green filed in the district court a “Notice to File Informal ProSe Appeal Brief,” which was transferred to this court and assigned case number 10-6122. On May 27, Mr. Green filed in the district court an “Amended Notice of Appeal.” Both notices, while referring in their headings to the district court’s order of May 6, make clear in their bodies that they relate to the district court’s order of March 3.

The notices are both untimely, as they were filed more than fourteen days after the entry of the order being appealed and there has not been any showing of excusable neglect or good cause justifying an extension of time. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(b). Accordingly, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. *See United States v. Smith,*182 F.3d 733, 734 (10th Cir.1999).

For these reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED. Additionally, Mr. Green’s Motion to Amend Too Pending Pro-Se Appeal and his Motion to Re-Instate Motion for Appointment of Counsel, both of which request appointed counsel for this appeal, are DENIED as moot.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

May 29, 2017

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 13, 2017. (This meeting had originally 

been scheduled for June 15, 2017.)

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Pocahontas Coal Company, LLC,

Docket Nos. WEVA 2014-395-R, et al. (Issues include whether the 

Judge erred in concluding that MSHA had established that a 

pattern of violations existed at the operator’s mine.) 

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO

MEETING: 1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode: 678-100

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
#### Israel CARDONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-75194.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Richard Clay Mendez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Manuel Palau, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*106Before: 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 **

Israel Cardona, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Cardona’s claim that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his anti-gang political opinion or membership in a particular social group. *See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder,*563 F.3d 855, 860-62 (9th Cir.2009) (concluding young Salvadoran men who are recruited by gangs and refuse to join is not a social group, and refusal to join gangs is not a political opinion); *Parussimova v. Mukasey,*555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, because Cardona failed to demonstrate he was or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his asylum and withholding claims. *See Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Car-dona failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. *See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir.2008).

Cardona’s due process contention regarding the BIA’s issuance of a streamlined decision is not supported by the record. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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



Exhibit 12.1 LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation and Subsidiaries
Statement Regarding Computation of Ratios (Unaudited)
(Dollar amounts in thousands) Computation of Coverage of Fixed Charges
 2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000Net loss
    
    $
    (20,781
    )
    
    $
    (35,052
    )
    
    $
    (29,126
    )
    
    $
    (26,408
    )
    
    $
    (39,014
    )Add:Provision for income taxes
    
    
    421
    
    
    
    459
    
    
    
    550
    
    
    
    689
    
    
    
    325Add fixed charges (1):Interest
    
    
    31,891
    
    
    
    34,239
    
    
    
    33,037
    
    
    
    30,306
    
    
    
    27,809Amortization of debt costs
    
    
    1,734
    
    
    
    1,831
    
    
    
    2,001
    
    
    
    1,178
    
    
    
    1,589Amortization of debt
discount
    
    
    82
    
    
    
    104
    
    
    
    147
    
    
    
    190
    
    
    
    215Interest portion of rentals
    
    
    239
    
    
    
    219
    
    
    
    198
    
    
    
    179
    
    
    
    158Earnings available to cover
fixed charges
    
    
    13,586
    
    
    
    1,800
    
    
    
    6,807
    
    
    
    6,134
    
    
    
    (8,918
    )Less fixed charges
    
    
    33,945
    
    
    
    36,393
    
    
    
    35,383
    
    
    
    31,853
    
    
    
    29,771Deficiency in the coverage of
fixed charges
    
    $
    (20,359
    )
    
    $
    (34,593
    )
    
    $
    (28,576
    )
    
    $
    (25,719
    )
    
    $
    (38,689
    )
   (1)
    
    Fixed charges consist of interest on all indebtedness, including amortization of debt
issuance expense and capitalized interest, and one-third of rental expense (which is estimated
to represent the interest portion thereof).
#### Satinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74974.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*244Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 13, 2010.

Judith Lott, Law Offices of Judith Lott, Newark, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Satinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, *Sowe v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Singh does not raise any argument that he suffered past persecution, *see Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-1260 (9th Cir.1996), but contends he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on having witnessed a riot from his roof-top in 1984, and based on the harm his father suffered after Singh left India. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Singh has not established a well-founded fear of persecution. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003); *see also Molino-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.2002) (“[T]he IJ and the BIA are entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1857

To repeal the Helium Act, to require the Secretary of the Interior to sell

Federal real and personal property held in connection with activities

carried out under the Helium Act, 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 Natural Resources

A BILL

To repeal the Helium Act, to require the Secretary of the

Interior to sell Federal real and personal property held

in connection with activities carried out under the Helium Act, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL.

4 The Helium Act (50 U.S.C. 161 et seq.) is repealed.

5 SEC. 2. SALE OF PROPERTY.

6 The Secretary of the Interior shall sell or otherwise

7 dispose of, at the best possible terms available to the

8 United States, all facilities, equipment, and other real or
2

HR 1857 IH

1 personal property, or rights thereto, held by the United

2 States in connection with activities carried out under the

3 Helium Act, unless such facilities, equipment, or other real

4 or personal property, or rights thereto, are required for

5 other Federal purposes.

6 SEC. 3. SALE OF HELIUM RESERVE.

7 The Secretary of the Interior shall sell or otherwise

8 dispose of, at the best possible terms available to the

9 United States, all helium reserves held by the United

10 States other than amounts required for the specific imme11 diate needs of the Federal Government. Such sale shall

12 be conducted in a manner consistent with the orderly con13 duct of commercial helium markets.

14 SEC. 4. REDUCTION OF FEDERAL DEBT.

15 All funds received pursuant to sections 3 and 4, and

16 all amounts remaining in the helium production fund es17 tablished under section 6(f) of the Helium Act, shall be

18 considered full repayment of loans made under section 12

19 of the Helium Act. Such funds shall be applied, subject

20 to appropriations, solely to the retirement of outstanding

21 United States Government debt, and may not be obligated

22 or expended for any other purpose, notwithstanding any

23 other provision of law that does not specifically reference

24 this section.

Æ
Exhibit
10


BIOSPHERE
MEDICAL, INC.


AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO

2006 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


Pursuant to
Section 6(e) of the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of BioSphere
Medical, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), the Plan be, and hereby
is, amended as set forth below. 
Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Plan.


1.    Section 6(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted
in its entirety and the following is substituted in its place:


“(a)  Initial
Grant.  Upon commencement of
service on the Board by any individual who is not then an employee of the
Company or any subsidiary of the Company, the Company shall grant to such
person a Nonstatutory Stock Option to purchase 15,000 shares of Common Stock
(subject to adjustment under Section 10).”


2.    Section 6(c) of the Plan is hereby deleted in
its entirety and the following is substituted in its place:


“(c)  Terms of
Director Options.  Options
granted under this Section 6 shall: (i) have an exercise price equal to the closing
price (for the primary trading session) of the Common Stock on The Nasdaq Stock
Market (“NASDAQ”) or the national securities exchange on which the Common Stock
is then traded on the date of grant (and if the Common Stock is not then traded
on NASDAQ or a national securities exchange, the Fair Market Value on the date
the Option is granted), (ii) with respect to Options granted under Section
6(a), vest in five equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary
of the date of grant, (iii) with respect to Options granted under Section 6(b),
vest in full on the date of grant, (iii) expire on the earlier of 10 years from
the date of grant or three months following cessation of services on the Board,
and (iv) contain such other terms and conditions as the Board shall determine.”


3.    This amendment shall be effective as of the
date approved by the Board of Directors of the Company.


Approved by the
Board of Directors on August 3, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1999 DONNELLY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     50,392
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,934
<PP&E>                                         323,210
<DEPRECIATION>                                 124,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 428,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,675
<BONDS>                                        107,383
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        531
<COMMON>                                         1,019
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   428,863
<SALES>                                        421,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               421,641
<CGS>                                          357,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  357,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,137
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,579
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,137
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (1,010)
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,031
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.77


</TABLE>