alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30723 Conference Calendar

__________________ MELVIN HASSAN SHAKIR, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus R. BRANDT; R. ACHORD; JEFFREY BLANK; S. BARBER; MARIANA LEGER; EDWARD L. BOEKER; RAYMOND MCNEAL, Lt.; WALLACE, Sgt., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 91-CV-293-B
- - - - - - - - - - February 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Melvin Hassan Shakir appeals the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 following a jury trial. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). In addition, we note that Shakir has already had monetary sanctions imposed on him by this court. In spite of this, Shakir has continued to file frivolous appeals. Accordingly, Shakir isNo. 95-30723 -2- barred from filing any pro se civil appeal in this court, or any initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advanced written permission of a judge of the forum court. The Clerk of this court and the Clerks of all federal district courts in this circuit are directed to return to Shakir, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeromie Cancel, Appellant.

[5 NYS3d 86]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 22, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements. While under arrest in Queens for petit larceny, defendant spontaneously declared that he had committed a murder. The arresting officer did not ask defendant a single question. Instead, the officer made declarative comments, expressing disbelief and essentially urging defendant to stop talking about the murder. Defendant nevertheless continued his unprompted description of the murder, until detectives were finally notified.

The lack of *Miranda*warnings did not warrant suppression of defendant’s statements to the arresting officer in Queens. The officer’s expressions of disbelief did not constitute the functional equivalent of interrogation *(see People v Rivers,*56 NY2d 476, 480 [1982]; *People v Lynes,*49 NY2d 286, 294-295 [1980]).

In any event, the statements defendant made after *Miranda*warnings were attenuated from the statements to the arresting officer, as well as from certain statements made to Queens detectives, which the court suppressed *(see People v White,*10 NY3d 286, 291 [2008], *cert denied*555 US 897 [2008]; *People v Paulman,*5 NY3d 122, 130-131 [2005]). To the extent there was a chain of events, it clearly began with defendant’s insistence on boasting of a murder, to an unwilling listener. Furthermore, there was a pronounced break between defendant’s statements in Queens, and his later statements to Manhattan detectives and to an Assistant District Attorney. There was a passage of more than two hours, and the questioning was conducted by different interrogators at a different location.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and *497find them, to be without merit.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2647 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2647

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 3 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that the effective 
   date of any changes in benefits under the Servicemen's Group Life 
    Insurance program shall be based on the International Date Line.

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

SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR CHANGES IN SERVICEMEN'S GROUP LIFE 
              INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Use of International Date Line.--Section 1967 of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(f) The effective date and time for any change in benefits under 
the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance program shall be based on the 
date and time according to the time zone immediately west of the 
International Date Line.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to amendments to chapter 19 of title 38, United 
States Code, that take effect after November 29, 1992.
            Passed the House of Representatives August 2, 1993.
            Attest:
                                                   DONNALD K. ANDERSON,
                                                                 Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-20368 Summary Calendar

CLAUDE L. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON, RAUL G. CAFFESSE, D.D.S., AND RICHARD S. McGUCKIN, D.D.S., Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-3222) March 29, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Judgment of the district court is affirmed for essentially the reasons provided in the district court’s Memorandum and Order dated March 25, 1998.
AFFIRMED.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 276

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to ban activities

of political action committees in elections for Federal office and to

reduce the limitation on contributions to candidates by persons other

than multicandidate political committees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. MAZZOLI (for himself and Mr. POSHARD) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

ban activities of political action committees in elections

for Federal office and to reduce the limitation on contributions to candidates by persons other than

multicandidate political committees.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 276 IH

1 SECTION 1. BAN ON ACTIVITIES OF POLITICAL ACTION

2 COMMITTEES IN ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL

3 OFFICE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Federal Election

5 Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended

6 by adding at the end the following new section:

7 ‘‘BAN ON FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITIES BY POLITICAL

8 ACTION COMMITTEES

9 ‘‘SEC. 324. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision

10 of this Act, no person other than an individual or a politi11 cal committee may make contributions, solicit or receive

12 contributions, or make expenditures for the purpose of in13 fluencing an election for Federal office.’’.

14 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO

15 CANDIDATES BY PERSONS OTHER THAN

16 MULTICANDIDATE POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

17 Section 315(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Cam18 paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A)) is amended

19 by striking out ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

20 ‘‘$500’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 10.56
 Amendment No. 1 to
Management Employment Agreement
  Background
    e.
    
    Notwithstanding any contrary provision contained in this Agreement,
upon the first occurrence of a Trigger Event (as hereafter defined), the
Employee shall be entitled to receive (i) severance equal to 100% of his then
current annual salary and applicable bonus (calculated assuming 100%
achievement and pro rated based on the number of days elapsed during the year
prior to the date on which the termination of employment occurred), payable in
one lump sum (ii) continuation of Benefits (as hereafter defined), subject to
applicable benefit plan provisions, for one year (or, if earlier, until such
time as Employee shall have obtained new employment with benefits substantially
comparable to the Benefits); and (iii) accelerated vesting of all stock
options, such that all stock options held by Employee immediately prior to the
date of Change of Control (as hereafter defined) shall become exercisable in
full as of the date of the Change of Control. In addition, upon the first
occurrence of a Trigger Event, any restrictions with respect to any restricted
stock or restricted stock units granted to the Employee under the Companys
equity incentive plans shall lapse and any conditions applicable to any
long-term performance award or performance shares granted to the Employee under
such plans shall be terminated.




---



##### 



(i)
    
    the acquisition of stock of the Company by any person
or persons acting as a group that results in such person or group
holding more than 50% of the stock of the Company by market value or
voting power;
 (ii)
    
    the acquisition of stock of the Company by any person
or persons acting as a group within any 12-month period representing at
least 30% of the voting power of the Companys stock;
 (iii)
    
    the election or appointment as director representing a
majority of the Companys Board of Directors of persons not endorsed by
a majority of the members of the Companys Board of Directors prior to
their respective election or appointment; or
 (iv)
    
    the acquisition of assets of the Company by any person
or persons acting as a group within any 12-month period representing at
least 40% of the total gross fair market value of all assets of the
Company immediately prior to such acquisition.
   2




---



##### 



eResearchTechnology, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Michael McKelvey

Michael McKelveyPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Keith D. SchneckKeith D. Schneck
  3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,162
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                       371
<INVENTORY>                                     65,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,576
<PP&E>                                         397,904
<DEPRECIATION>                                 178,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 382,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,378
<BONDS>                                         41,357
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,284
<OTHER-SE>                                     237,471
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   382,144
<SALES>                                        194,481
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,127
<CGS>                                          143,143
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    31
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,995
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,872
<DISCONTINUED>                                   9,656
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,528
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.31


</TABLE>
**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

  The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each of Gene A. Capello, Lawrence  A. Fox, Robert B. Lamm and Matthew Lepore as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact  and agent, and grants each of them full power to act on behalf of the undersigned  and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, for the purpose  of completing and signing, on his behalf, 

> 
      • any Form 3, Form 4 or Form 5 required or permitted to be filed by      him pursuant to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended      (the "Exchange Act"),       • any Form 144 required to be filed by him under the Securities Act      of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and Rule 144 promulgated      thereunder, and      • any and all other documents necessary or desirable to facilitate      the filing by him of Form 144 and of forms under Section 16 of the Exchange      Act, 

  with regard to the undersigned's ownership of or transactions in securities  of Pfizer Inc., including, without limitation, the power to complete and sign  any and all amendments to such forms and documents, if any, and to file such  forms and documents and amendments thereto with the Securities and Exchange  Commission, and to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite or  necessary to be done in connection with such forms and documents and amendments  thereto, as fully and to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or  could do in person. 

The authority of Gene A. Capello, Lawrence A. Fox, Robert B. Lamm and Matthew  Lepore under this Power of Attorney shall continue until the undersigned is  no longer required to file Form 3, Form 4, Form 5 or Form 144 with regard to  the undersigned's ownership of or transactions in securities of Pfizer Inc.,  unless earlier revoked in writing. The undersigned acknowledges that Gene A.  Capello, Lawrence A. Fox, Robert B. Lamm and Matthew Lepore are not assuming  any of the undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Rule 144 under the  Securities Act or Section 16 of the Exchange Act.

  Signature: /s/ Stephen W. Sanger  Stephen W. Sanger

Date: February 1, 2009
**Exhibit32.2**

**Certificationby the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, David L. Shedlarz, herebycertify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Pfizer Inc.on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 28, 2004 (the "Report")fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in thatReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Pfizer Inc. 

/s/ David L.Shedlarz            David L. ShedlarzExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 7, 2004

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "ExchangeAct").  Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the ExchangeAct, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it byreference.
EX-34.3
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
214 N. Tryon Street
Ste 3600
Charlotte NC 28202
Telephone (704) 344 7500
Facsimile (704) 344 4100



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To Board of Directors and Shareholders
of Bank of America, National Association:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Assessment Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (the
"Compliance Statement"), that Bank of America, National Association (the
"Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the asset-backed
securities transactions involving commercial mortgage loan transactions that
involved an offer or sale of asset-backed securities that were required to be
registered on or after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform"), as of
December 31, 2007 and for the year then ended, excluding the criteria which the
Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed
by them with respect to the Platform as indicated in Appendix A of the
Compliance Statement. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and
determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and
performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and
servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this
report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from
errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during
the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Bank of America, National
Association complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as
of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for the Platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.

February 28, 2008
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1


                  AWARENESS LETTER OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


May 14, 2001


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. Registrations on Form S-3 and
    Form S-8.

We are aware that our report dated April 17, 2001 on our review of interim
financial information of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the period ended March 31, 2001 and included in the Company's
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by
reference in the Company's registration statements on Form S-3 (File Nos.
333-80603 and 333-60190) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-76269, 333-21619,
333-55685, 333-33533, and 333-36092). Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered a part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by us within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7055

ERIC L. GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WILCOX, Staff Member at Alexander Correction; STEERTS, Sgt. Unit Supervision 

at Alexander Correction; POTEAT, Unit Manager for Alexander Correction; 

POWELL, Asst. Unit Manager at Alexander Correction; WELCH, Sgt. for Unit at 

Alexander Correction; BELL, Officer for Alexander Correction; CLAWSON, 

Officer for Alexander Correction; WOOD, Nurse for Alexander Correction; 

MITONEN, Kitchen Supervisor at Alexander Correction; HAMILTON, Kitchen 

Supervisor at Alexander Correction; JOHN DOE, 1-2,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

ERIC DYE, Asst. Warden; GAMEWELL, Staff Member at Alexander Correction,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00103-FDW)

Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric L. Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Eric L. Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment as to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claim and declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. We dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 25, 2019. The notice 

of appeal was filed on July 16, 2019.

∗ Because Green failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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

 ∗ For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date it could have been delivered to prison officials for mailing to the 

court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).