alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3563

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Shawn Sherman, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 1, 2003

 Filed: May 16, 2003

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Sherman appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

after a jury found him guilty of possessing with intent to distribute over five grams

of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base. On appeal, counsel has moved to

withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing

that the District Court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it must find that
-2-

Sherman intended to distribute at least five grams of cocaine base as required by

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We reject this argument and affirm.

The indictment charged a specific drug quantity, and the jury found Sherman

guilty pursuant to instructions that referenced that quantity. As such, we find no

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Beckman, 222 F.3d 512, 520–21 (8th Cir.

2000) (using abuse-of-discretion standard of review to determine “whether the

instructions, taken as a whole and viewed in light of the evidence and applicable law,

fairly and adequately submitted the issues in the case to the jury,” and finding no

abuse of discretion where district court’s instructions accurately and thoroughly

provided elements and definition of crimes charged) (internal citations omitted).

Even if the drug quantity had not been established in the jury instructions, Sherman’s

ninety-month sentence is not subject to an Apprendi challenge because it does not

exceed the twenty-year statutory maximum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2000)

that is applicable to drug-trafficking offenses without regard to drug quantity. See

United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S.

1026 (2000). Sherman also cannot rely on Apprendi to challenge the five-year

statutory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). See Harris v. United States, 536

U.S. 545, 557 (2002) (explaining that Apprendi does not prohibit judges from

deciding facts that increase mandatory minimum sentence). 

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), including the sufficiency of the evidence, we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 115.82 Access to emergency medical and mental health services. ( a ) Detainee victims of sexual abuse shall have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, including emergency contraception and sexually transmitted infections prophylaxis, in accordance with professionally accepted standards of care.
( b ) Emergency medical treatment services provided to the victim shall be without financial cost and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser or cooperates with any investigation arising out of the incident.
§ 300.1 Scope and effective date, and organization. ( a ) *Introduction.* This part implements changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA” or the “Act”), enacted by Title I of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”). Public Law 107-155. Unless expressly stated to the contrary, nothing in this part alters the definitions, restrictions, liabilities, and obligations imposed by sections 30101 to 30145 of Title 52, United States Code, or regulations prescribed thereunder (11 CFR parts 100 to 116).
( b ) *Effective dates.* ( 1 ) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this part, this part shall take effect on November 6, 2002. However, subpart B of this part shall not apply with respect to runoff elections, recounts, or election contests resulting from elections held prior to such date.
( 2 ) The increase in individual contribution limits to State committees of political parties, as described in 11 CFR 110.1(c)(5), shall apply to contributions made on or after January 1, 2003.
( c ) *Organization of part.* Part 300, which generally addresses non-Federal funds and closely related topics, is organized into five subparts. Each subpart is oriented to the perspective of a category of persons facing issues related to non-Federal funds. ( 1 ) Subpart A of this part prescribes rules pertaining to national party committees, including general non-Federal funds prohibitions, fundraising, and donation prohibitions with regard to certain tax-exempt organizations, and reporting.
( 2 ) Subpart B of this part pertains to State, district, and local political party committees and organizations. Subpart B of this part focuses on “Levin Amendment” to BCRA; office buildings; and fundraising and donation prohibitions with regard to certain tax-exempt organizations.
( 3 ) Subpart C of this part addresses non-Federal funds from the perspective of tax-exempt organizations, setting out rules about prohibited fundraising for certain tax-exempt organizations by national party committees, State, district, and local party committees, and Federal candidates and officeholders.
( 4 ) Subpart D of this part includes regulations pertaining to soliciting non-Federal funds from the perspective of Federal candidates and officeholders in Federal and non-Federal elections; including exceptions for those who are also State candidates and exemptions for those attending, speaking, and appearing as featured guests at fundraising events, or who solicit for certain tax-exempt organizations.
( 5 ) Subpart E of this part focuses on State and local candidates, including regulations about using Federal funds for certain public communications, and exceptions for entirely non-Federal communications.
( 6 ) For rules pertaining to convention and host committees, see 11 CFR part 9008.
[67 FR 49120, July 29, 2002, as amended at 79 FR 77850, Dec. 29, 2014; 81 FR 94240, Dec. 23, 2016]
J

- S55022

- 14

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MALIK MANDRUM A/K/A MALIK

MANGRUM,

Appellant No. 3259 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 26

, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0011828

- 2012

BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN, and OTT, JJ.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY BOWES, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 04, 2015

For reasons more fully outlined in my concurring decision in

Commonwealth v. Bizzel , 2014 PA Super 267, I concur in the result.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, John P. Crowley,certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FairPoint Communications, Inc.(the “Company”);

2.                Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.                The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) rule 13a—15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the Company and we have:

(i)             designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report was being prepared;

(ii)         evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report; and

(iii)     disclosed in this report anychange in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of a quarterly report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.                The Company’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):

(i)             all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(ii)         anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’s internal controls over financialreporting.

**Date: August 7,2006**

|        | /s/ John P.  Crowley       |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   | John P. Crowley            |   |
|   | *Chief  Financial Officer* |   |

 

----
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Quarterly Report of RAKO Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Gary M. Fuchs, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                                  /s/ Gary M. Fuchs
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Gary M. Fuchs
                                                  Chief Executive Officer


Dated: May 19, 2003
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Stock Option Termination Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 MOTIVE, INC. 
 STOCK OPTION TERMINATION AGREEMENT 
 This Stock Option Termination Agreement is made and entered into as of June 16, 2008, by and between Motive, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), and Alfred Mockett, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“Optionee”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Optionee are parties to that certain Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated February 20, 2006, under which Optionee was granted the option (the “Option”)
to purchase up to 750,000 common shares of Company common stock at a strike price of $3.40 per share; and 
 WHEREAS, Optionee desires not to
exercise the Option because the strike price thereof is greater than the tender offer price contemplated in the Merger Agreement referred to below, and thus Optionee and the Company desire to terminate the Agreement and to extinguish all of their
respective rights and obligations thereunder, effective upon consummation of the tender offer (the “Tender Offer”) contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of June 16, 2008 (the “Merger
Agreement”), by and among Lucent Technologies Inc. (“Parent”), Magic Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. (“Merger Sub”) and the Company; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, Optionee does hereby terminate, waive and relinquish any and all rights he may have under the Agreement, conditioned only on the
consummation of the Tender Offer; and the Company does, by its duly authorized representative, accept such termination, waiver and relinquishment and hereby relinquishes any rights the Company may have under the Agreement, also conditioned on
consummation of the Tender Offer. Furthermore, Optionee hereby acknowledges that, as of the date hereof, no portion of the Option held by him has been exercised, and Optionee hereby agrees not to exercise any portion of the Option held by him until
and unless this Stock Option Termination Agreement is terminated in the manner provided herein. If for any reason (i) the Company shall terminate the Merger Agreement, or (ii) Parent and Merger Sub shall terminate the Merger Agreement or
refuse to consummate the Tender Offer after the satisfaction or waiver of all conditions thereto, then in each such case this Stock Option Termination Agreement shall thereupon immediately terminate, become void and of no further force or effect.

  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Optionee have caused this Stock Option Termination Agreement to be
executed as of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	 MOTIVE, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jack Greenberg

		 	Jack Greenberg
		 	General Counsel
	
	 OPTIONEE

	
	 /s/ Alfred Mockett

	Alfred Mockett


  

 2
### **CHAPTER 91—CHILDREN'S ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION**

Sec.
6501.
Definitions.
6502.
Regulation of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in connection with collection and use of personal information from and about children on the Internet.
6503.
Safe harbors.
6504.
Actions by States.
6505.
Administration and applicability.
6506.
Review.
§ 158.611 Salary structure. ( a ) Under the salary system, described in § 158.610, the Department establishes and administers one or more salary structures based on the strategy, information, principles and practices, and priorities listed in § 158.602(a).
( b ) A salary structure: ( 1 ) Is bounded by the salary range described in § 158.613;
( 2 ) Incorporates, as described in paragraph (d) of this section, the salary limitations described in § 158.614; and
( 3 ) May incorporate other salary and cost control strategies, such as control points.
( c ) A salary structure includes subranges, within the salary range described in § 158.613 that are associated with work levels established by the work valuation system, described in § 158.404. Each such subrange is associated with at least one such work level.
( d ) The Department incorporates the salary limitations described in § 158.614 into a salary structure by assigning each such salary limitation to at least one subrange of the salary structure. The Department assigns such salary limitations in ascending order to the subranges such that each subrange has a salary limitation that is greater than or equal to the salary maximum of that subrange.
( e ) The Department may adjust a salary structure annually, or as the Secretary or designee determines necessary, based on the strategy, information, principles and practices, and priorities listed in § 158.602(a).
### Part G—Airlines

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Part G was enacted as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and not as part of the CARES Act which in part comprises this chapter.
§ 316.8 Unmarked inspected products; moved between official establishments; moved in commerce. ( a ) Unmarked products which have been inspected and passed but do not bear the official inspection legend may be transported in compliance with part 325 of this subchapter from one official establishment to another official establishment, for further processing, in a railroad car, truck, or other closed container, if the railroad car, truck, or container is sealed with an official seal of the Department (as prescribed in part 312 of this subchapter) bearing the official inspection legend.
( b ) Products which have been inspected and passed but do not bear the official inspection legend may be removed from an official establishment in closed containers bearing the official inspection legend and all other information required by this part and part 317 of this subchapter: *Provided,* That upon removal from such closed container the product may not be further transported in commerce unless such removal is made under the supervision of a Program employee and such product is reinspected by a Program employee and packed under his supervision in containers bearing the official inspection legend and all other information required by this part and part 317 of this subchapter: *And provided further,* That unmarked product shall not be brought into an official establishment in an open container.
#### § 354.134 Appeal inspections; how made.

Any person receiving inspection service may, if dissatisfied with any decision of an inspector relating to any inspection, file an appeal from such decision or action in accordance with 9 CFR 500.9.

[87 FR 63423, Oct. 19, 2022]
# C_2007105EN.01000301.xml

| 9.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 May 2007

(2007/C 105/04)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3558 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 162,29 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4522 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68030 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1890 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6489 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,83 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1360 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5828 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,232 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,85 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6967 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7491 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3053 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,627 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8190 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6355 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4946 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6018 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8363 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0545 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 251,34 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3921 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,4342 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3415 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 052,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6204 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,824 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,9560 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,340 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3558

JPY

Japanese yen

162,29

DKK

Danish krone

7,4522

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68030

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1890

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6489

ISK

Iceland króna

86,83

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1360

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5828

CZK

Czech koruna

28,232

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,85

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6967

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7491

RON

Romanian leu

3,3053

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,627

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8190

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6355

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4946

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6018

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8363

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0545

KRW

South Korean won

1 251,34

ZAR

South African rand

9,3921

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,4342

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3415

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 052,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6204

PHP

Philippine peso

63,824

RUB

Russian rouble

34,9560

THB

Thai baht

44,340

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Ch ief Judge Fitz patrick, Judge Benton and Senior Judge Overton A rgued at Alex andria, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER ARTIS RICH MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2670-01-4 JU DGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. OCTOBER 15, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY Richard B. Potter, Judge (Myron J. Teluk, on brief, for appellant). Appellant submit ting on brief. (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General; Steven A. Wi tmer, Assistant At torney General, on brief), for ap pellee. Appell ee submitting on brief.

A jury convicted Ch ristopher Artis Rich of arme d robbery and use of a firearm in th e commission of a felony. Th e issue raised by this appeal is wh ether the trial judge erred by refusing to allow Rich's attorn ey (1) to inform the jury panel on voir dire of the minimum sentences for robber y and for the le sser-included offenses of gran d and petit larcen y and (2) to inqu ire whether any persons on the panel had religious or moral belief s that would preclude them from impo sing minimu m sentences.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.While this appeal wa s pending, the Suprem e Court reve rsed our decision in Hill v. Co mmonwealth , 36 Va. App. 375, 381, 550 S.E.2d 351, 354 (2001), which de cided a simila r issue. See Commonwealth v. Hill , 264 Va. 315, ___ S.E.2d ___ (2002). The Court held, [i]n summary, . . . that neither the defendant nor the Commonwealth in a non-capital criminal prosecution has a constitutional or statutory right to ask the members of a jury panel questions about the range of punishment that may be imposed upon a defendant if he is ultimately convicted of the crimes charged or of lesser included offenses. Id. at 320, ___ S.E.2d at ___. Accordingly, we affi rm the convictions. Affirmed

.

- 2 -
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1713

In re: WANDA LETANG,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:20-cv-00171-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: July 28, 2022 Decided: August 5, 2022

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wanda Letang, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1713 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/05/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Wanda Letang petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the 

district court to file her amended complaint. She sent the amended complaint to the court 

six months after the court dismissed her civil rights case for failure to prosecute, and after 

the court had afforded her two opportunities to provide the information required for its 

consideration of her complaint. She did not seek to appeal the dismissal for failure to 

prosecute. 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to 

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re 

Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Letang is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we 

deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1713 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/05/2022 Pg: 2 of 2