alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Devin T. GREEN, also known as Twin, Appellant.

No. 01-3099.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 7, 2002.

Decided June 7, 2002.

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Devin Green guilty of conspiring to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and aiding and abetting the attempt to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.'S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. After denying Green’s motion for a new trial, the district court1 sentenced him to 210 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. Green appeals. Upon careful review of the record, we reject his arguments for reversal.

We conclude, based on the evidence presented at trial, that the district court did not clearly err in determining the relevant drug quantity, *see United States v. Sarabia-Martinez,*276 F.3d 447, 450 (8th Cir. 2002), or in giving Green a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 organizer/leader enhancement for supervising at least one other member of the conspiracy, *see United States v. Peters,*59 F.3d 732, 734-35 (8th Cir.1995). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Green’s motion for a new trial after finding that the new evidence he produced was not credible and was not likely to result in an acquittal. *See United States v. Grey Bear,*116 F.3d 349, 350-51 (8th Cir.1997).

We further conclude that the trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support the convictions, *see United States v. Johnson,*285 F.3d 744, 749-50 (8th Cir.2002); and that admitting evidence of Green’s prior drug conviction was not an abuse of discretion because he placed his state of mind at issue, *see United States v. Jackson,*278 F.3d 769, 771-72 (8th Cir.2002). Green does not identify, nor can we discern, any prosecutorial remarks that would have deprived him of a fair trial, *see United States v. Lemon,*239 F.3d 968, 972 (8th Cir.2001); and no prosecutorial misconduct was shown regarding changes in a government witness’s testimony where Green had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness about whether the changes resulted from government pressure, *see United States v. LaFuente,*54 F.3d 457, 461 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*516 U.S. 902, 116 S.Ct. 264, 133 L.Ed.2d 187 (1995). We also conclude that Green waived his jury-selection argument, *see United States v. Parham,*16 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir.1994); the indictment was sufficient, *see United States v. Carter,*270 F.3d 731, 736 (8th Cir.2001); and any defects in the grand jury process were cured by the petit jury’s verdict, *see United States v. Tulk,*171 F.3d 596, 598 (8th *836Cir.1999). Finally, we see no plain error in the unobjected-to jury instructions, see *United States v. Evans,*285 F.3d 664, 669 (8th Cir.2002); and any ineffective-assistance claim should be presented in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, if at all, *see United States v. Martin,*59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir.1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The HONORABLE FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### § 48.4218-4 Use in further manufacture.

For purposes of section 4218 and § 48.4218-1, an article is used as material in the manufacture or production of, or as a component part of, another article, if it is incorporated in, or is a part or accessory of, the other article. Lubricating oil in the crankcase of a new truck is an example of a taxable article use as material in the manufacture or production of, or as a component part of, another article. In addition, an article (other than gasoline used as a fuel) is considered to be used as material in the manufacture of another article if it is partly or entirely consumed in testing such other article; for example, shells or cartridges used in testing new firearms. similarly, if an article is partly or wholly consumed in quality testing a production run of like articles (as, for example, an automotive part destroyed in stress testing) such article is also considered to have been used as material in the manufacture of another article. However, if a taxable article that has been used tax free and only partly consumed in testing is later sold, or put to a taxable use, by the manufacturer, tax attaches to such sale or use. An article that is consumed in the manufacturing process other than in testing, so that it is not a physical part of the manufactured article, is not used as material in the manufacture or production of, or as a component part of, such other article. Thus, lubricating oil consumed in operating plant machinery in the course of the manufacture of automobile truck chassis is not used as material in the manufacture or production of, or as a component part of, the truck chassis.

[T.D. 6687, 28 FR 11781, Nov. 5, 1963, as amended by T.D. 7536, 43 FR 13521, Mar. 31, 1978]
Summary Employment Agreement - T. Baker


    
       

      Exhibit
        10(i)

       

       

      


       

       

      


       

       

      T.L.
        Baker 

       

       

      Employment
        Arrangements 

       

       

      As
        of
        March 1, 2006, TXU Corp. (the “Company”) has employed T.L. Baker as the Chairman
        of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TXU Electric Delivery Company
        on an
        at-will employee basis. The Company pays Mr. Baker an annual salary
        equal to
        $632,000, and Mr. Baker is eligible to participate in all compensation and
        benefit plans of the Company in which similarly situated executives are eligible
        to participate, which currently include the TXU Corp. Executive Annual Incentive
        Plan, the TXU Corp. 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the TXU Corp. Salary Deferral
        Plan, the TXU Executive Financial Advisement Program, the Executive Physical
        Examination Program, the TXU Second Supplemental Retirement Plan, the TXU
        Corp.
        Executive Change in Control Policy and the TXU Corp. 2005 Executive Severance
        Plan. Additionally, Mr. Baker participates in the TXU Deferred and Incentive
        Compensation Plan and the TXU Split Dollar Life Insurance Program.
Letter from MasterCard International Incorporated to Alan J. Heuer



 Exhibit 10.10.1 
 Robert W. Selander 
 President and Chief Executive Officer 
 MasterCard International 
 2000 Purchase Street 
 Purchase, NY 10577-2509 
 914-249-5100 
 Fax 914-249-5510 
 Internet Home Page: 
 http://www.mastercard.com 
 March 22, 2004 
 Mr. Alan J. Heuer 
 MasterCard International 
 2000 Purchase Street 
 Purchase, NY 10577 
 Dear Alan,

 I would like to extend my personal congratulations to you for being selected this year for a one-time, special recognition award. 
 You were chosen because the Board and I wanted to recognize the valuable role that you have in the company and to provide incentive for your continued support in
achieving our objectives over the coming years. Please know that this is a very important message indicating how highly valued your contributions and services are to MasterCard. 
 For this special recognition, you will be entitled to payment of a one-time cash award of $1,000,000 that fully vests and is payable December 29, 2006. 
 Congratulations! 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 /s/    ROBERT SELANDER
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: AUGUST 9, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 

LIBERTY 

FOUNDATION, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2011 GL-03-0070 

Respondent 

' > ,-

. •\ . ·- ~· ·._.! ~ 

ORDER TEMPORARILY GRANTING RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION TO STAY TIME TO FILE ANSWER AND 

RESERVING RULING ON OTHER REQUESTED RELIEF 

On July 31, 2013 the FAA filed an Amendment to Complaint. 

On August 5, 2013 an Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Compel was filed. 

On August 7, 2013 the Respondent filed Respondent's Motion to Stay or Revise 

Scheduling Order due to New Allegations in Complainant's Amendment to Complaint, 

[Motion] to Allow Respondent to Take Discovery on the New Issues Raised in the 

Complaint, [Motion] to Order Complainant to Disclose its Witnesses and Documents 

Related to the Amendment, and [Motion] to Stay the Requirement to Answer the 

Amendment Pending Resolution of this Motion. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.214 and 14 C.F.R. §13.218(d), and after reviewing all 

relevant caselaw, decisions, regulation, statutory authority, motions, pleadings, and being 

fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Respondent's Motion to Stay Time to File Answer is partially granted. The 

twenty day time for the Respondent to file an Answer to the FAA's Amended 

Complaint is temporarily stayed pending the FAA's filing of a Response to the 

Motions and the administrative court's ruling upon the same. 

2. August 17,2013: FAA Motion Response Deadline. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

§13.21S(d), the FAA shall its Response to the Respondent's August 7, 2013 

Motions on or before August 17, 2013. 
3. The Respondent's other requests for relief, contained in the Respondent's August 

7, 2013 Motion filing, are reserved for ruling pending receipt of the FAA's 

Response to the Motions. 

Attachment: Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-2012-0477 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration1 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

Mr. Christopher Stevenson, Esq. 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Stuart A. Goldstein, Esq. 

Respondent's Counsel 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P.A. 

9350 South Dixie Highway, lOth Floor 

Miami, FL 33156 

TEL: 305-670-1222 

FAX: 305-670-7065 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

ONE COPY 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Maria Bran et al., Appellants, v Samuel King et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 440]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J), dated September 2, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary *325judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Aronov v Leybovich,*3 AD3d 511 [2004]; *Zavala v DeSantis,*1 AD3d 354 [2003]; *Black v Robinson,*305 AD2d 438 [2003]; *Claude v Clements,*301 AD2d 554 [2003]; *Gamberg v Romeo,*289 AD2d 525 [2001]; *Junco v Ranzi,*288 AD2d 440 [2001]). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]; *see also Facci v Kaminsky,*18 AD3d 806 [2005]; *Lesane v Tejada,*15 AD3d 358 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 152 (Monday, August 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39970-39971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19178]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-09-023]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding The Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date: August 18, 2009 at 2 p.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. Agenda for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-458 and 731-TA-1154 (Final) (Certain Kitchen 
Appliance Shelving and Racks from China)--briefing and vote. (The 
Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and 
Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before 
August 31, 2009.)
    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting,

[[Page 39971]]

may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier 
announcement of this meeting was not possible.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 3, 2009.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. E9-19178 Filed 8-6-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
§ 36.3121(l)(4)-1 Termination of agreement by Commissioner. ( a ) *Notice of termination.* The period for which an agreement entered into with a domestic corporation as provided in § 36.3121(l)(1)-1 is in effect may be terminated by the Commissioner, with the prior concurrence of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, upon a finding by the Commissioner that the domestic corporation has failed to comply substantially with the terms of the agreement. The Commissioner shall give the corporation not less than 60 days' advance notice in writing that the period for which the agreement is in effect will terminate at the end of the calendar quarter specified in the notice of termination.
( b ) *Revocation of notice of termination.* A notice of termination given to a domestic corporation by the Commissioner may be revoked by the Commissioner, with the prior concurrence of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare by giving written notice of revocation to the corporation prior to the close of the calendar quarter specified in the notice of termination.
§ 54.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in § 1.6694-2 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78458, Dec. 22, 2008]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 69 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 275
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 69

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 8, 1995

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

                           December 14, 1995

               Reported by Mr. Warner, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in
the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the 
expiration of the term of Homer Alfred Neal of Michigan on December 6, 
1995, is filled by the reappointment of the incumbent for a term of six 
years, effective December 7, 1995.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 7, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 275

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 69

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

   Providing for the reappointment of Homer Alfred Neal as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 14, 1995

                       Reported without amendment
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 101 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 101

   Disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and 
                        Realignment Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 1995

 Mr. Fazio of California (for himself, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Herger, Mr. 
Matsui, and Mr. Pombo) introduced the following joint resolution; which 
           was referred to the Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and 
                        Realignment Commission.
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
as submitted by the President on July 13, 1995.
                                 <all>
```
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 10

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding

school prayer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States regarding school prayer.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 10 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘Nothing in this constitution shall prohibit the inclu5 sion of voluntary prayer in any public school program or

6 activity. No person shall be coerced by the United States

7 or by any State to participate in such prayer. Neither the

8 United States nor any State shall prescribe the content

9 of any such prayer.’’.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Andres HURTADO-RAMIREZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50735.

D.C. No. CR-01-01000-L.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 19, 2002.

*929Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 . . This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Andres Hurtado-Ramirez appeals his 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry of a deported alien after conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Hurtado-Ramirez contends that under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court deprived him of due process by imposing a sentence greater than Section 1326(a)’s two-year maximum based on Hurtado-Ramirez’s prior aggravated felony, where he did not admit to having previously committed an aggravated felony.

Hurtado-Ramirez, who states that he presents the issue merely to preserve it in the event of ensuing favorable Supreme Court precedent, acknowledges that the argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-12-00287-CR

____________________

CHRISTOPHER GROZE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court 

Hardin County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 18568 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Christopher Groze pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to aggravated 

robbery. The trial court found the evidence substantiated his guilt, but deferred 

further proceedings and placed him on community supervision for five years. The 

State subsequently filed a motion to revoke and appellant pleaded “true” to various

violations of the community supervision order. The trial court found appellant 

violated these conditions, adjudicated him guilty of aggravated robbery, and 

assessed punishment at twenty-two years of confinement. Appellate counsel filed a 
2

brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. Counsel 

concludes there are no arguable points of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1978). This Court granted an extension of time for appellant to file a 

pro se response. We received no response from the appellant. We have reviewed 

the appellate record and agree with counsel’s conclusion. It is unnecessary to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

 ________________________________

 DAVID GAULTNEY 

 Justice

Submitted on March 5, 2013

Opinion Delivered March 27, 2013

Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

GS Mortgage SecuritiesCorporation II 

200 West Street

New York, New York 10282

 

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2016-GS3Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-GS3

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of September 1, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)           A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;and

 

(b)          To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

  

 

/s/Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|