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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6311

KEITH TYRONE JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-95-577-3)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Tyrone Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no error as to all but

one of Appellant's claims. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

probable cause to appeal as to these claims; to the extent that a

certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss all but one of Appellant's claims on the reasoning

of the district court. Johnson v. Warden, Nottoway, No. CA-95-577-3

(E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 1996).

The remaining claim alleged that Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to

have closing arguments transcribed and therefore may have impeded

his ability to bring a sufficiency of the evidence claim under

Virginia law. The Supreme Court of Virginia barred this claim under

Penn v. Smyth, 49 S.E.2d 600 (Va. 1948), which requires that petitions allege facts and not mere conclusions or opinions. Because

Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to particularize his

conclusory claim in state court, we reviewed the merits of the

claim.

We find, however, that a review on the merits does not entitle

Appellant to the relief he seeks. Taking the testimony presented at

trial in the light most favorable to the Government, a reasonable

fact finder could find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
3

See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (providing

standard for a sufficiency of the evidence challenge). Accordingly,

Appellant has not demonstrated that his attorney's failure to

ensure transcription of the closing arguments resulted in any

prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)

(providing standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

Having thus disposed of all claims raised by the Appellant, we deny

a certificate of probable cause to appeal or, to the extent that

one is required, a certificate of appealability, and dismiss. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Post Of fice Box 12548, Austin, Texas 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www.texasattor neygeneral.gov 

May 20, 2015 

Jeffery D. Kyle, Clerk 

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12547, Austin, Texas 78711-2547 

Re: Cause No. 03-13-00370-CV; The State Board for Educator Certification, et al. v. 

Erasmo Montalvo; In the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas at Austin 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

Please be advised that the undersigned counsel will be on vacation and out of town or 

unavailable from Wednesday, July 15th through and including Wednesday, July 22nd, 

2015. I respectfully request that no hearings or deadlines be scheduled during that period.

Thank you for your attention, and please advise if you have any questions. 

Very truly yours, 

/s/ Ellen Sameth 

Ellen Sameth

Assistant Attorney General

Administrative Law Division 

Telephone: (512) 936-1838 

Facsimile: (512) 474-1062 

cc: Mark W. Robinett Via: Electronic Service 

BRIM, ARNETT, ROBINETT,

CONNERS & MCCORMICK, P.C. 

2525 Wallingwood Drive, Bldg. 14 

Austin, Texas 78746

E-mail: mrobinett@brimarnett.com 

 

ACCEPTED

03-13-00370-CV

5361915

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

5/20/2015 2:44:43 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 RECEIVED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/20/2015 2:44:43 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, a public meeting will be held Thursday, June 1, 2000 of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Working Group assigned to study Long-Term Care: Issues and Solutions

The session will take place in Room N-5437 A-D, U.S. Department of Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 1 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m., is for working group members to take testimony focusing on long-term care indemnification in the marketplace today. Subtopics will be: Who purchases long-term policies? What services are typically included: What do they cost? What factors influences cost? How can policies be made more affordable to the consumer?

Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement pertaining to the topic by submitting 20 copies on or before May 26, 2000 to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, room N-54677, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Working Group should forward their request to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact Sharon Morrissey by May 26 at the address indicated in this notice.

Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the meeting if received on or before May 26.

Dated: Signed at Washington, DC this 12th day of May 2000.

Leslie Kramerich,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-12403  Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
Exhibit 10.14

 



 

September 10, 2013

 

Michael Heffernan

***

 

Re:          Employment Agreement Amendment

 

Dear Mike:

 

Reference is made to that certain letter agreement dated June 13, 2012 between you and Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the “Company”) regarding the terms of your employment with the Company (the “Agreement”).  Effective on the date hereof, this letter agreement (the “Amendment”) amends certain terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement as follows:

 

Section 5 of the Agreement is amended by retitling Section 5(e) as “Section 5(f)” and adding a new Section 5(e) to read as follows:

 

“If within sixty (60) days prior to a Sale of the Company (as defined in the Company’s Transaction Bonus Plan dated September 5, 2013 (the “Bonus Plan”)) either (i) your employment with the Company is terminated without Cause (as defined below) or (ii) you resign for Good Reason (as defined below), then, your interest in the Bonus Plan shall not be forfeited and you shall be eligible to receive a Transaction Bonus under the Bonus Plan, subject to the terms and conditions thereof other than with respect to any employment requirement thereof.  In addition, during any period of time in which the Company has entered into a letter of intent or similar agreement with a third party and is contractually bound pursuant to such letter of intent or similar agreement with the third party by an exclusivity agreement to effect or negotiate a transaction that results in a Sale of the Company, the Company shall not amend or modify the Bonus Plan in any manner that would negatively affect your interest therein without your prior written consent”

 

The Agreement, as hereby amended, is ratified and confirmed in all respects.

 

This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 

1











 

If you are in agreement with the terms of this Amendment, please execute this Amendment at the signature line below and return an executed copy to my attention.

 

Very truly yours,

 

COLLEGIUM PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.

 

	
By:
    	
/s/   Michael Heffernan
    	
 
    
	
Name: Michael Heffernan
    	
 
    
	
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    


 

Date: September 10, 2013

 

Intending to be legally bound,

accepted and agreed to by:

 

 

	
/s/   Michael Heffernan
    	
 
    
	
Michael   Heffernan
    	
 
    


 

Date: September 10, 2013

 

2
# EUR-Lex - 32000R1336 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R1336

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1336/2000 of 19 June 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco **

*
Official Journal L 154 , 27/06/2000 P. 0002 - 0002 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 1336/2000

of 19 June 2000

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Whereas:

(1) Article 9(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92(3) assigns production quotas to producers in proportion to the average quantity delivered over the three years preceding that of the most recent harvest.

(2) Article 9(4) of that Regulation stipulates that, before the final date for the conclusion of cultivation contracts, Member States may be authorised to transfer parts of their guarantee threshold allocations to other variety groups, in accordance with paragraph 3. The words "in accordance with paragraph 3" were taken over from a provision that preceded the adoption of the transfer measure. The reference to paragraph 3 in paragraph 4 should therefore be deleted in view of the fact that transfers cannot occur under paragraph 3 without adversely affecting producers who, having already received production quotas in proportion to the average quantity delivered in the three years preceding the year of the most recent harvest, apply to cultivate other varieties responding to market demand. Application of the reference to paragraph 3 would mean in effect that the quantities transferred would be assigned to the producers in proportion to the average quantities delivered by them in the three years preceding the year of the most recent harvest, without taking account of the acquired right of the producer applying for the transfer.

(3) The measure in question should apply from the 1999 harvest,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The first subparagraph of Article 9(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 is hereby amended as follows:"Before the final date for the conclusion of cultivation contracts, Member States may be authorised to transfer parts of their guarantee threshold allocations to other variety groups."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from the 1999 harvest.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 19 June 2000.

For the Council

The President

L. Capoulas Santos

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 87.

(2) Opinion delivered on 15 March 2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 70. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 660/1999 (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 10).
128 STAT. 1746 PUBLIC LAW 113–140—JULY 25, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1813: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Mar. 24, considered and passed House. 

July 10, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–140 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 162 

Northeast Avenue in Tallmadge, Ohio, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan 

Deyarmin, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL DANIEL NATHAN DEYARMIN, JR., POST 

OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) REDESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 162 Northeast Avenue in Tallmadge, Ohio, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan 

Deyarmin, Jr., Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan Deyarmin, Jr., Post Office 

Building’’. 

Approved July 25, 2014. 

July 25, 2014 

[H.R. 1813] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
§ 22.28 Motions. ( a ) Any application to the ALJ for an order or ruling shall be by motion. Motions shall state the relief sought, the authority relied upon, and the facts alleged, and shall be filed with the ALJ and served on all other parties.
( b ) Except for motions made during a prehearing conference or at the hearing, all motions shall be in writing. The ALJ may require that oral motions be reduced to writing.
( c ) Within 15 days after a written motion is served, or such other time as may be fixed by the ALJ, any party may file a response to such motion.
( d ) The ALJ may not grant a written motion before the time for filing responses thereto has expired, except upon consent of the parties or following a hearing on the motion, but may overrule or deny such motion without awaiting a response.
( e ) The ALJ shall make a reasonable effort to dispose of all outstanding motions prior to the beginning of the hearing.
#### § 18.406 Habit; routine practice.

Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 490 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 490

    To designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 
                                Ridge''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 14, 2019

Mr. Daines (for himself and Mr. Tester) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 
                                Ridge''.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``B-47 Ridge Designation Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF B-47 RIDGE, MONTANA.

    (a) Designation.--
            (1) In general.--The unnamed mountain ridge located at 
        4514'40.89"N, 11043'38.75"W that runs south and west of 
        Emigrant Peak in the Absaroka Range in the State of Montana, 
        which is the approximate site of a crash of a B-47, shall be 
        known and designated as ``B-47 Ridge''.
            (2) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
        document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
        ridge described in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a 
        reference to ``B-47 Ridge''.
    (b) Authorization for Plaque.--
            (1) In general.--A plaque that memorializes the crash of 
        the B-47 (including denoting the names of the victims of the 
        crash) may be installed on B-47 Ridge.
            (2) Funding.--No Federal funds may be used to design, 
        procure, install, or maintain the plaque authorized under 
        paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
§ 2200.35 Disclosure of corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates. ( a ) *General.* All answers, petitions for modification of abatement period, or other initial pleadings filed under these rules by a corporation shall be accompanied by a separate declaration listing all parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates of that corporation or stating that the corporation has no parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates, whichever is applicable.
( b ) *Failure to disclose.* The Commission or the Judge in its discretion may refuse to accept for filing an answer or other initial pleading that lacks the disclosure declaration required by this paragraph. A party that fails to file an adequate declaration may be held in default after being given an opportunity to show cause why it should not be held in default. All show cause orders issued by the Commission or the Judge shall be served in a manner prescribed in § 2200.7(o).
( c ) *Continuing duty to disclose.* A party subject to the disclosure requirement of this paragraph has a continuing duty to notify the Commission or the Judge of any change in the information on the disclosure declaration until the Commission issues a final order disposing of the proceeding.
----

Action brought on 16 April 2004 by Bernard Nonat against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-151/04)

(2004/C 168/19)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 2004 by Bernard Nonat, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Nöel Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case objects to his career development report, as drawn up for the period from 1 July to 31 December 2002.

In support of his claims, the applicant argues:

----
#### WILSON v STATE OF FLORIDA

Appeal No. 86-361

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County

September 30, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Roger O. Mills for appellant.

James M. Barton II, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

*119OPINION OF THE COURT

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Gilbert Wilson, appeals the trial court’s Order Denying the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Breathalyzer Results and the trial court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike Prior Conviction for Purposes of Enhancement. The trial court is hereby affirmed.

The first issue Appellant argues is that the Defendant was not observed for 20 minutes prior to the administration of the breathalyzer test as required by HRS Rule 10 D-42.24(l)(f). The testimony of Cynthia Perry was that she observed the Defendant from 1:58 A.M. to 2:22 A.M. during which time the Defendant performed the field sobriety tests on the video. Florida Statute 316.1934(3) requires “substantial compliance” with the Rules approved by the Department of HRS. The evidence reflects that the 20 minutes observation rule was substantially complied with.

The second issue argued by the Appellant was that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike Prior Conviction for Enhancement Purposes. The motion which was sworn to by the Defendant alleges that the Defendant, although represented by counsel, was never informed by counsel or court that his conviction could be used to enhance a penalty upon a second conviction and for that reason the prior conviction should be struck for the purposes of enhancing the penalty.

A duly entered judgment and conviction is presumed valid. *Paul v. State,*177 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). In a collateral attack on the validity of a prior conviction on the grounds that the trial court failed to determine whether the Defendant had voluntarily and knowingly waived his fundamental constitutional rights, defendant must allege and establish by competent evidence that there was not in fact a knowing and intelligent waiver of such constitutional rights. Defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. A simple assertion is not sufficient. *Allen v. State,*463 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

In this case, the Appellant did not meet his burden. There is not a record attached or any other competent evidentiary facts to support the assertion. In addition the Defendant was represented by counsel at the time of the prior plea and a presumption of validity should attach because of that fact. The trial court should not assume without adequate support in the record that the prior plea entered by Appellant was not knowingly and voluntarily made.

Finally, the undersigned court is not convinced that failure to inform the Defendant of the specific information that this conviction “could be *120used to enhance a penalty upon a second conviction” is a failure to inform the Defendant of a fundamental constitutional right.

The trial court is *affirmed on both issues.*

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of September, 1987.
§ 1471.505 Who uses the EPLS? ( a ) Federal agency officials use the *EPLS* to determine whether to enter into a transaction with a person, as required under § 1471.430.
( b ) Participants also may, but are not required to, use the *EPLS* to determine if— ( 1 ) Principals of their transactions are excluded or disqualified, as required under § 1471.320; or
( 2 ) Persons with whom they are entering into covered transactions at the next lower tier are excluded or disqualified.
( c ) The *EPLS* is available to the general public.