alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30277

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GREGORY DARNELL DOTSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

CONSOLIDATED WITH

No. 00-30360

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JEFFERY BERNARD MCDANIEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-30017-8

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

November 9, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 00-30277 c/w

00-30360

-2-

1 Acting sua sponte, we concur with the district court in

determining that a letter written by McDaniel to the district

court could serve as an effective notice of appeal. See Cobb v.

Lewis, 488 F.2d 41, 45 (5th Cir. 1974).

Gregory Darnell Dotson and Jeffery Bernard McDaniel appeal

from the sentences imposed after they pleaded guilty to

possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute.1

Dotson argues that the district court erred in determining

that a stop of his vehicle was justified by a violation of the

traffic laws. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that

Dotson has shown no reversible error in the district court’s

decision to credit a state trooper’s testimony over that of his

brother’s. See United States v. Castro, 166 F.3d 728, 733 (5th

Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 78 (1999).

Dotson argues that even if the traffic stop was valid, the

district court erred in upholding a trooper’s patdown search of

his person. Because a reasonably prudent officer would--under

the totality of circumstances--have been concerned for his safety

or the safety of others, the patdown search was justified. See

United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 840-41 (5th Cir. 1994)

(en banc).

Dotson’s final argument is that the evidence obtained from a

search of an abandoned bag must be suppressed because it was the

product of an unlawful stop or an illegal patdown. As we have

rejected Dotson’s arguments about the stop and the patdown, we

find this argument to be meritless as well.

McDaniel contends that, at sentencing, he sufficiently

objected to the presentence report’s failure to award him a
No. 00-30277 c/w

00-30360

-3-

downward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Having

reviewed the transcript, however, we conclude that McDaniel made

no such objection. See United States v. Bullard, 13 F.3d 154,

157-58 (5th Cir. 1994). In addition, we perceive no plain error

that occurred regarding § 3B1.2. See United States v. Fierro, 38

F.3d 761, 774 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Lujan-Sauceda,

187 F.3d 451, 452 (5th Cir. 1999).

McDaniel argues, in the alternative, that if sentencing

counsel did not sufficiently raise the § 3B1.2 issue, he provided

ineffective assistance of counsel. We decline to reach this

argument on direct appeal. See United States v. Kizzee, 150 F.3d

497, 503 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of John L. Silverman, Respondent, v Robert McGuire et al., Appellants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 24, 1978, unanimously affirmed on constraint of *Brown v Codd*(62 AD2d 547), without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Lynch and Carro, JJ.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:02cr8-SPM

HENRY LEE GIVENS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR COPY OF PSR

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Henry Lee Givens’

Request for Copy of Presentence Investigation Report (doc. 38). 

The presentence investigation report is not a public record maintained by

the court. United States v. Martinello, 556 F.2d 1215, 1216 (5th Cir. 1977). 

Thus, Defendant’s request for a copy of his presentence investigation report will

be denied. 

Defendant is advised, however, that he may review, but not copy,

documents in his Inmate Central File, which includes his presentence

investigation report. Defendant should make his request through the Bureau of

Prisons in accordance with Bureau of Prisons Program Statement Nos. 1351.05

Case 4:02-cr-00008-MW Document 39 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO. 4:02cr8-SPM

and 5800.11. 

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s request for a copy of his

presentence investigation report (doc. 38) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2007.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00008-MW Document 39 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          -  [USITC SE-10-031]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

United States International Trade Commission.

# TIME AND DATE: 

November 30, 2010 at 11 a.m.

# PLACE: 

                        Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,                         *Telephone:*                         (202) 205-2000.                    

# STATUS: 

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Review) (Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before December 14, 2010.

5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: November 19, 2010.

William R. Bishop,

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.

[FR Doc. 2010-29665 Filed 11-19-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### In the Matter of Bruce Frankel, Petitioner, v New York State Education Department et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (instituted in this court pursuant to the Education Law, § 6510, subd 4) to annul a determination of the Commissioner of Education suspending petitioner’s license to practice as a podiatrist for three months and fining him in the amount of $1,000. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. (See *Tartack v New York State Dept, of Educ.,*75 AD2d 953.) Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Casey, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 2 p.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 11, 2010 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

An adjudicatory matter; and

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: February 4, 2010.

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-2972 Filed 2-5-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit 10.3


 


FORM OF AMENDMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT is made effective as of January 1, 2009 to the Employment
Agreement between [                        ]
(“Executive”) and United Therapeutics Corporation dated [                            ],
as amended from time-to-time (the “Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS,
certain payments and benefits to Executive under the Agreement may be subject
to the rules set forth in Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”);


 


WHEREAS,
the parties intend the Agreement to comply with Section 409A, and the
Agreement has been administered in accordance with the requirements thereof;


 


WHEREAS,
the revisions to the Agreement to reflect Section 409A will have no impact
on the substantive entitlements of Executive under the Agreement;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby amend the Agreement, as
follows:


 


1.                                       A new Section 11(i) is added to
read as follows, effective as of January 1, 2009:


 


Section 409A. 
Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, Executive
shall not be entitled to any payment pursuant to Section 8 prior to the
earliest date permitted under Section 409A of the Code, and applicable
Treasury regulations thereunder.  To the
extent any payment pursuant to Section 8 is required to be delayed six
months pursuant to the special rules of Section 409A of the Code
related to “specified employees,” each affected payment shall be delayed until
six months after Executive’s termination of employment, and, unless
provided otherwise, with the first such payment being a lump sum equal to the
aggregate payments Executive would have received during such six-month period
if no payment delay had been imposed.  Any
payments or distributions delayed in accordance with the prior sentence shall
be paid to Executive on the first day of the seventh month following Executive’s
termination of employment.  Notwithstanding
any other provision contained herein, to the extent any payments or
distributions due to Executive upon termination of his employment under this
Agreement are subject to Section 409A of the Code, a termination of
Executive’s employment shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with
the definition of a “separation from service” under Section 409A of the
Code and the applicable Treasury regulations thereunder.


 


2.                                       No other
provisions of the Agreement shall be affected by this Amendment, and all other
provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 

















 


In
witness whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of January 1,
2009.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


2
#### Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Freeman.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman,*109 Ohio St.3d 1206, 2006-Ohio-2577.]

(No. 2005-0365

Submitted April 28, 2006

Decided May 5, 2006.)

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Thomas Herbert Freeman, Attorney Registration No. 0007852, last known business address in Norwalk, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of October 12, 2005, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

{¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by this court that respondent be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

{¶ 4} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be *1207made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

{¶ 5} For earlier case, see *Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman,*106 Ohio St.3d 334, 2005-Ohio-5142, 835 N.E.2d 26.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD 

NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY 

PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Travis Montre Smith, Petitioner, 

v. 

State of South Carolina, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2013-001696 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

Appeal from Spartanburg County 

The Honorable J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 2015-MO-066 

Submitted October 15, 2015 – Filed November 18, 2015 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, 

for Petitioner. 
Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Senior Assistant 

Deputy Attorney General Karen C. Ratigan, both of 

Columbia, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the dismissal of Travis 

Montre Smith's application for post-conviction relief. We now dismiss the writ as 

improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED 

TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur. 

PLEICONES, J., not participating.
Amendment No. 1



 EXHIBIT 10.19 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
  
 This Amendment No. 1 to that certain employment agreement dated as of January 1, 2002, by Domino’s Pizza LLC, a Michigan limited liability
corporation (the “Company”) and J. Patrick Doyle (the “Executive”) (the “Agreement”) is dated as of October 4, 2004. 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as set forth herein; 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements set forth herein and in the Agreement, the parties
here to agree as follows; 
  
 1.        
The second Recital and Section 3.1 shall be amended to delete references to “Executive Vice President of International” and replace it with “Executive Vice President, Domino’s Pizza Inc., Leader –Team USA.” 

 
 2.         Section 4.1 of the Agreement is hereby
deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced with the following: 
  
 “Base Salary. The Company shall pay the Executive a base salary at the rate of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($290,000) per year, payable in accordance with the payroll practices of the Company for its executives and
subject to such increases as the Board of Directors of the Company or the Compensation Committee (the “Board”) in its sole discretion may determine from time to time (the “Base Salary”).” 
  
 3.         All capitalized terms used herein shall
have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
  
 4.         Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed is Amendment as of the 4th day of October 2004. 
  

					
	THE COMPANY:	 	DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC
			
	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ David A. Brandon


	 	 	Name: David A. Brandon
	 	 	Title: Chairman
			
	THE EXECUTIVE:	 	By:	 	 /s/ J. Patrick Doyle


	 	 	Name: J. Patrick Doyle
2006-0686.

#### Hackney v. Wolfe.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Bromley Hackney. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Andrews 

~Myers HOUSTON I AUSTIN 

Honorable Christopher A. Prine 

Clerk of the Court 

First Court of Appeals 

301 Fannin Street 

Houston, TX 77002 

August 21, 2015 

ROBERT A PLESSALA 

DIRECT DIAL 713.850.4217 

RPLESSALA@ANDREWSMYERS.COM 

VIA E-FILING 

Re: Darrell Julian and Ted Hennis v. Cadence McShane Construction 

Co., LLC end Pinpoint Commercial, LP, General Partner of PPC 

GP, LLC 

Court of Appeals Number: 1-15-00465-CV 

Trial Court Case Number: 2014-13825 

Dear Mr. Prine: 

I am in receipt of Appellants' Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Reply 

Brief. The Appellees are not opposed to the Motion. Unfortunately, our lack of 

opposition was not sufficiently communicated to counsel for Appellants. I apologize 

for any confusion. 

Counsel is being copied with this letter. Thank you for your courtesies. 

Very truly yours, 

Isl Robert A. Plessala 

Robert A. Plessala 

RAPlslg 

Andrews Myers• Attorneys at Law 

3900 Essex Lane, Suite 800 •Houston, Texas 77027-5198 

T 713.850.4200 F 713.850.4211 • andrewsmyers.com 

4816·7423-2871 

3189.9 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00465-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

8/21/2015 10:29:54 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/21/2015 10:29:54 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Honorable Christopher A. Prine 

Clerk of the Court 

August 21, 2015 

Page 2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was 

forwarded to all counsel of record in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the TEXAS RULES OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE on this the 21st day of August, 2015. 

VIA E-MAIL 

Troy Tindal 

trov@tindalllawfirm.com 

Tindal Law Firm 

17225 El Camino Real, Suite 190 

Houston, TX 77058 

Attorneys for Third Party Defendants! Appellants 

Isl Robert A. Plessala 

Robert A. Plessala 

4816-7423-2871, v. 1 

4816-7423-2871 

3189.9
EXHIBIT 32.2



May 11, 2006

Securities and Exchange
Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group
LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                            
|----------------------------
|                            
|/s/    Michael J. Castellano
|Michael J. Castellano       
|Chief Financial Officer     



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### § 28.951 Director.

The Director shall perform, for and under the supervision of the Administrator, such duties as the Administrator may require in enforcing the regulations in this subpart.
#### § 3565.51 Eligible loans and advances.

Upon approval of an application from an eligible or approved lender, the Agency will commit to providing a guarantee for a permanent loan or a construction and permanent loan, subject to the availability of funds.

[76 FR 3, Jan. 3, 2011]
§ 3201.18 Hand cleaners and sanitizers. ( a ) *Definitions* — ( 1 ) *Hand cleaners.* Products formulated for personal care use in removing a variety of different soils, greases, and similar substances from human hands with or without the use of water.
( 2 ) *Hand sanitizers.* Products formulated for personal care use in removing bacteria from human hands with or without the use of water. Personal care products that are formulated for use in removing a variety of different soils, greases and similar substances and bacteria from human hands with or without the use of water are classified as hand sanitizers for the purposes of this rule.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The minimum biobased content requirement for all hand cleaners and/or sanitizers shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product. The applicable minimum biobased contents are: ( 1 ) Hand cleaners—64 percent.
( 2 ) Hand sanitizers (including hand cleaners and sanitizers)—73 percent.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than May 14, 2009, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased hand cleaners and sanitizers. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased hand cleaners and sanitizers.
[73 FR 27953, May 14, 2008]
|  | EM Home | Learn About EM | History
- Introduction  Pre-1940'sThe 40's
- The 50's  The 60'sThe 70's
- The 80's  The 90's(Through 1993)Sources Used for the Nuclear Age Timeline
- Selected Resources  Where to Get More Information

**EM HOME  |  DOE HOME |  SEARCH  |  WEBSITE OUTLINE****FEEDBACK |  ACCESSIBILITY | **PRIVACY AND SECURITY NOTICE **

Last Updated 11/15/1999 (mes)** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### § 29.3560 Type 37.

That type of air-cured or sun-cured tobacco commonly known as Virginia Sun-cured, Virginia Sun and Air-cured, or Dark Air-cured of Virginia, and produced principally in the central section of Virginia north of the James River.

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]