alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO GONZALEZ-ALVAREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-73090

Agency No. A077-343-447

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted November 3, 2010 

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner, Antonio Gonzalez-Alvarez, seeks review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) order pretermitting his application for Adjustment of

Status pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 245(I), 8 U.S.C. §

1255(i). Gonzalez-Alvarez argues that the BIA erred in concluding his drug

FILED

NOV 08 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

conviction fails to qualify for treatment under the Federal First Offender Act

(FFOA), 18 U.S.C. § 3607 (2006).

Gonzalez-Alvarez’s 2001 conviction does not qualify for expungement under

the FFOA because Gonzalez-Alvarez violated the terms of his initial 1995

probation. If a person “violates a condition of his probation, the court shall proceed

in accordance with the provisions of section 3565.” 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a) (2006). 

See Estrada v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1039, 1041 (9th Cir. 2009) (“FFOA relief is

unavailable when an offender has violated a condition of probation.”); ParedesUrrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801, 811–12 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that an alien’s

offense must fall within the scope of the FFOA for the alien to avoid immigration

consequences). See also Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728, 749 (9th Cir.

2000) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent requires that FFOA benefits “be

extended to aliens whose offenses are expunged under state rehabilitative laws,

provided that they would have been eligible for relief under the Act had their

offenses been prosecuted as federal crimes”). 

The fact that Gonzalez-Alvarez later successfully completed a rehabilitative

program and had the conviction dismissed under state law does not cure the original

violation. Because the 1995 probation violation disposes of this case, we do not

reach the remaining issues.
3

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

                        [Global Sports, Inc. Letterhead]


                                 April 23, 2002


Mr. Michael R. Conn


Dear Mike:

     Reference is made to the Employment Agreement, dated February 24, 1999 (the
"Employment Agreement"), between Global Sports, Inc. (the "Company") and you.
The Company and you desire to extend the term of the Employment Agreement in
consideration of your agreement to terminate certain options to purchase shares
of the Company's common stock that were previously granted to you.

     In consideration of the agreements contained in this letter, and intending
to be legally bound hereby, the Company and you agree as follows:

     1. The term of the Employment Agreement is hereby extended by two years so
        that the term will end on December 31, 2005, unless sooner terminated in
        accordance with the other provisions of the Employment Agreement. During
        the extended term of your Employment Agreement, so long as you continue
        in the employ of the Company, you will be entitled to receive annual
        increases in your Base Salary in an amount equal to the annual increase
        provided for with respect to last year of the initial term of your
        Employment Agreement and you will continue to be eligible to receive
        annual bonuses equal to the bonus provided for with respect to the last
        year of the initial term of your Employment Agreement.

     2. The options listed on Exhibit "A" hereto to purchase shares of the
        Company's common stock that were granted by the Company to you pursuant
        to the Company's 1996 Equity Incentive Plan are hereby terminated as of
        the date of this letter.

     3. Except as otherwise specifically provided for in this letter, all terms
        and conditions of your Employment Agreement will remain in full force
        and effect.

<PAGE>

Mr. Michael R. Conn
April 23, 2002
Page 2


     Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by signing this letter
where indicated below and returning a copy to me.

                                             Sincerely,

                                             /s/ Michael G. Rubin

                                             Michael G. Rubin
                                             Chairman, President and
                                             Chief Executive Officer




AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:


/s/ Michael R. Conn
------------------------------
Michael R. Conn

<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit "A"

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
    Option Date              Number of Shares            Option Price            Type of Option
--------------------      -----------------------     -------------------     ---------------------
<S>                       <C>                         <C>                     <C>
     02/24/99                     50,000                    $12.375                    NQ
     08/09/99                     30,000                    $ 15.00                    NQ
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 10.15.1         QUAKER CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION CHANGE
                        IN CONTROL AGREEMENT RENEWAL AND EXTENSION
                        ACKNOWLEDGMENT BETWEEN QUAKER CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND
                        LOAN ASSOCIATION AND HANK H. KADOWAKI DATED JULY 1,
                        1998.


                QUAKER CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
                          CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT
                      RENEWAL AND EXTENSION ACKNOWLEDGMENT



Name of Participant:     Hank H. Kadowaki
                    -------------------------


The undersigned participant does hereby acknowledge that, at their regularly
scheduled meeting  on June 25, 1998, the Board of Directors of Quaker City
Federal Savings and Loan Association acted to renew and extend the Quaker City
Federal Savings and Loan Association Change in Control Agreement with the
undersigned participant to a full twenty-four (24) month term, until June 30,
2000.


Dated this 1st day of July, A.D., 1998.


                                       QUAKER CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
                                       ASSOCIATION


/s/ Hank H. Kadowaki                   By:  /s/ Frederic R. McGill
------------------------                  --------------------------
Participant                               President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages 3-5 of the
Company's Form 10-Q for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000829649
<NAME> CONTOUR MEDICAL, INC.
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          42,593
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,126,170
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,635,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,899,832
<PP&E>                                       2,113,823
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,306,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,066,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,679,898
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         3,833
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     922,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,066,982
<SALES>                                      4,750,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,753,569
<CGS>                                        3,420,339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,420,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               984,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                348,286
<INCOME-TAX>                                   118,417
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   229,869
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2324 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2324

     To suspend for a 3-year period the duty on omega-dodecalactam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             May  27, 1993

  Mr. Spratt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend for a 3-year period the duty on omega-dodecalactam.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY DUTY SUSPENSION FOR IMPORTED OMEGA-DODECALACTAM.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.31.11  Omega-dodecalactam (provided for in subheading 2933.79.50)  Free            No change        No change        On or before       
                                                                                                                                      the 3-Year        
                                                                                                                                      period            
                                                                                                                                      beginning on      
                                                                                                                                      the 15th day      
                                                                                                                                      after the date    
                                                                                                                                      of the            
                                                                                                                                      enactment of    ''
                                                                                                                                      this heading     .

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse consumption, on or after the 15th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
exv10w11



 







Exhibit 10.11







Vesting Acceleration And Severance Agreement



In consideration for the continued employment of Rob Younge (the “Employee”) at the executive level
within Hansen Medical (the “Company”):



In the event of an Acquisition of the Company (as defined below) and either a) the termination of
his employment for other than Cause (as defined below) or b) the material change of his employment
by substantial diminution in compensation or duties, or c) substantial relocation of his place of
work, Employee shall be entitled to the following:




     (i) Fifty percent (50%) of any then-unvested shares subject to stock options issued to
Employee shall become immediately vested;



     (ii) Employee shall receive three (3) months of severance payments based on Employee’s then
current annual salary compensation; and



     (iii) Employee shall receive three (3) months continuation of Employee’s then-current health,
dental, vision, and life/disability insurance benefits;


The following terms shall have the following definitions:



(i) An “Acquisition” shall mean a) any consolidation or merger of the Company with or into any
other corporation or entity or person in which the stockholders of the Company prior to such
consolidation, merger or reorganization shall own less than fifty percent (50%) of the voting stock
of the continuing or surviving entity of such consolidation, merger or reorganization, b) any other
corporate reorganization in which in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the Company’s voting power is
transferred, or c) any transaction in which any person, together with its affiliates, accumulates
fifty percent (50%) or more of the Company’s voting power;



(ii) “Cause” shall mean (a) an intentional unauthorized use or disclosure of the Company’s
confidential information or trade secrets, which use or disclosure causes material harm to the
Company, (b) a material breach of any agreement between Employee and the Company, (c) a material
failure to comply with the Company’s written policies or rules, (d) conviction of, or plea of
“guilty” or “no contest” to, a felony under the laws of the United States or any state thereof, (e)
gross negligence or willful misconduct or (f) a continued failure to perform assigned duties after
receiving written notification of such failure from the Company’s Board of Directors.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Understood and Agreed:

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	          /s/ Robert Younge

	 	 	 	          11 Oct 05
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Robert Younge, CTO

	 	 	 	Date
	 
	 	 	 	 
	          /s/ Fred Moll

	 	 	 	          10-11-05
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Fred Moll, CEO

	 	 	 	Date
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan PEREZ-MANUEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-10645

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 19, 2014.

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Perez-Manuel (Perez) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court erroneously imposed a three-year term of supervised release to follow his 16-month prison term without providing sufficient reasons why supervised release was necessary in his case.

Perez has completed his term of imprisonment, has been released from custody, and has been removed to Mexico. The appeal of his sentence is therefore moot. *See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis,*483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir.2007). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

*

 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.
#### IN RE: Dante Amor MORRIS, Petitioner.

No. 10-3954.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Oct. 21, 2010.

Opinion filed: Nov. 12, 2010.

Dante Amor Morris, Fort Dix, NJ, pro se.

John J. Pease, III, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Dante Morris seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to grant his release from prison and to compel the prosecutor involved in his case to “enforce” certain unspecified obligations to him. We will deny the petition.

*558In March 2004, Morris pled guilty to thirty-six counts of possessing and uttering counterfeit checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 518(a). The District Court sentenced Morris to eight months of imprisonment, a three year term of supervised release, a special assessment of $8,600, and restitution in the amount of $29,135.17. After his release from prison, Morris failed to report to the U.S. Probation Office and, in August 2004, the District Court issued a warrant for his arrest. Morris remained a fugitive until he was arrested by the U.S. Marshals Service in January 2010. At a hearing that same month, the District Court revoked Morris’ supervised release and imposed a sentence of twenty-four months of imprisonment. Morris subsequently filed a notice of appeal in this Court arguing, inter alia, that the District Court lacks jurisdiction over his case. *See United States v. Dante Morris,*C.A. No. 10-2507. While that appeal was pending, he filed the instant mandamus petition.

Although the relief that Morris seeks in his petition is not entirely clear, he appears to request review of the same issue that he raised on direct appeal — that the District Court lacks jui'isdiction over his case and, as a result, he should be released from prison. He also argues that the prosecutor involved in his case owes him certain “obligations,” but does not specify what those obligations are.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. *See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,*418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.2005). A petitioner seeking mandamus must demonstrate that “(1) no other adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” *Hollingsworth v. Perry,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 705, 710, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Mandamus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal. *See Madden v. Myers,*102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir.1996).

Because Morris filed his mandamus petition while his direct appeal was still pending in this Court and mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal, we will deny the petition.1

1

. To the extent Morris also alleges that the prosecutor involved in his case has failed to satisfy certain obligations, he has not set forth anything in support of the assertion, let alone demonstrated that mandamus relief is warranted.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                               GC COMPANIES, INC.

                                OCTOBER 31, 2001

                              EXHIBIT TO FORM 10-K

Computation of weighted average number of shares outstanding used in determining
basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share:


                                                   Year Ended October 31,
                                               ------------------------------
(in thousands)                                 2001         2000         1999
                                               -----        -----        -----
BASIC
-----

1. Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding                   7,802        7,750        7,715
                                               =====        =====        =====

DILUTED (A)
-----------

1. Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding                    7,802       7,750         7,715

2. Diluted effect of shares issuable
   on exercise of stock options, net
   of shares assumed to be purchased
   out of proceeds of market price                 --          --            --
                                                -----       -----         -----

3. Weighted average number of shares
   used in diluted per share
   computations                                 7,802       7,750         7,715
                                                =====       =====         =====

(A) This calculation is submitted in accordance with Securities Exchange Act of
    1934 Release No. 9083.
**Exhibit23.1**

** **

                  **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-118487 and 333-22419) and Form S-8(Nos. 333-27429 and 333-88430) of Associated Estates Realty Corporation of ourreport dated February 25, 2009, relating to the financial statements, financialstatement schedules, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Cleveland, Ohio

February25, 2009

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the balance sheet and statements of operations for the six months
ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
                        
                      


       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         129,078
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,924,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,109,818
<INVENTORY>                                    40,285,309
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               75,271,233
<PP&E>                                         52,581,972
<DEPRECIATION>                                 19,472,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,106,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,422,320
<BONDS>                                        29,138,136
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       7,222,550
<OTHER-SE>                                     56,734,932
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,106,373
<SALES>                                        60,511,998
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               60,511,998
<CGS>                                          50,646,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  50,646,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               292,738
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,178,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,631,428
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,336,366
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,295,062
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,295,062
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .33
        



</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARCEL A. WRIGHT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3685

[October 25, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-7746 CF10A.

Marcel A. Wright, Defuniak Springs, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi Bettendorf, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.