alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-11140

Summary Calendar

JAVIER ARINSON LANDAZURI,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

KEITH E. HALL, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:10-CV-49

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,

Javier Arinson Landazuri, federal prisoner # 83145-079, pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced, inter alia, to 235

months’ imprisonment. Landazuri, however, filed the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

at issue on this appeal in the Northern District of Texas. In it, he challenged his

sentence and conditions of confinement, claiming, inter alia, he should receive

a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on the 2007

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 28, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-11140 Document: 00511459879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2011
No. 10-11140

Sentencing-Guidelines amendments for crack-cocaine offenses. See, e.g., United

States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). In this pro se appeal,

Landazuri raises only his § 3582(c)(2) contention. Accordingly, he waives any

challenge to the district court’s denial of relief on his other claims. E.g., Hughes

v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1999).

Regarding the § 3582(c) issue, the district court dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction because it was not the sentencing court. The dismissal of a § 2241

petition is reviewed de novo. E.g., Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir.

2000) (holding § 2241 petition challenging manner in which prisoner’s sentence

was initially determined must either be dismissed or construed as 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion, which must be filed in court in which prisoner was sentenced).

Because Landazuri did not file this challenge to his sentence in the court in

which he was sentenced, the district court ruled correctly that it lacked

jurisdiction to consider it. See, e.g., id. at 212; United States v. Meza, 620 F.3d

505, 507 (5th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, the district court in which Landazuri was

sentenced has previously denied his petition for sentence reduction pursuant to

§ 3582(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-11140 Document: 00511459879 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2011
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

In the Interest of A.W.S., Jr., a child. ) ) ) A.S., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1254 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM ) PROGRAM, ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed July 25, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Robert Branning, Judge. Toni A. Butler of Alderuccio & Butler, Naples, for Appellant. Meredith K. Hall, Bradenton, for Appellee Department of Children and Families. Laura J. Lee, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          89,686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,986
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,468
<PP&E>                                          53,392
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,239
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 765,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,120
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       884,044
<OTHER-SE>                                   (176,043)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   765,121
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   600
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,728
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (79,128)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (79,128)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (79,128)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 333 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 333

    Expressing continued support for employee stock ownership plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2008

 Mr. Hinchey (for himself and Mr. Rohrabacher) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                               and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing continued support for employee stock ownership plans.

Whereas in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Congress 
        codified a technique of corporate finance which utilizes employee stock 
        ownership, officially named an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP);
Whereas in the 33 years since the statutory recognition of ESOPs, there have 
        been ample data collected by objective research indicating that the vast 
        majority of corporations sponsoring employee stock ownership through 
        ESOPs are high performing companies that, among other indicia of high 
        performing companies, have better sales, are more sustainable, pay 
        better, and provide more retirement savings compared to similar 
        companies that are not employee-owned; and
Whereas Congress, in more than 15 laws since 1974, has made it explicit that 
        ESOPs are to serve the dual purpose of providing retirement savings and 
        stock ownership for employees, as well as being a financing technique 
        for corporations: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress expresses its continued support for employee stock 
ownership plans.
                                 <all>
```
No. 44213.

#### Protests 886815-G, etc., of Katz-Berk Hat Body Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were sustained accordingly.
### Surface water supply of the United States, 1941, Part VII, Lower Mississippi River basin

By: Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp927

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Before the First Division,

January 12, 1939

No. 40402.

#### Protest 837262-G of New York Merchandise Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of uninflated rubber balls or so-called beach balls the same as those the subject of *United States*v. *Woolworth*(24 C. C. P. A. 338, T. D. 48770). The claim at 30 percent under paragraph 1502 was therefore sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MUSTIFA RANDALL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 190 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Union Constitution Provisions: Trusteeship

              																	Cohany, Harry P.					 and 	Phillips, Irving P. 						*Union Constitution Provisions: Trusteeship : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1263*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										November 1959,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4545,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
EXHIBIT 10.16

AMENDMENT 1 TO

THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY

1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN

DATED JANUARY 23, 2007

The McClatchy Company 1997 Stock Option Plan, amended and restated as of February 1, 2001 (the Plan), is hereby amended as follows,
effective January 23, 2007:



| | 1. | Paragraph (c) of Section 6 is hereby amended by deleting the current paragraph thereunder, and replacing it with the following paragraph:
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) EXERCISE PRICE. Each Stock Option Agreement shall specify the Exercise Price which shall be determined by the Committee in its sole
discretion, provided that the Exercise Price of each Option shall be at least the Fair Market Value of a Share on the date of grant. The Exercise Price shall be payable in a form described in Section 7.



| | 2. | Except as amended above, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The McClatchy Company has executed this Amendment 1 to the Plan in Sacramento,
CA, as of this 23rdday of January, 2007.



THE MCCLATCHY COMPANYBy:

/s/ Karole Morgan-PragerName:

Karole Morgan-PragerTitle:

VP, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary




|                   |  | 
|------------------ |  | 
|ATTEST:           
|                  
|/s/ Mylyn McArthur
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 144 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 144

    To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 
    monuments in Nevada except by express authorization of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

  Mr. Ensign introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 
    monuments in Nevada except by express authorization of Congress.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL 
              MONUMENTS IN NEVADA.

    This proviso of the last sentence of the first section of the Act 
of September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is 
amended by inserting ``or Nevada'' after ``Wyoming''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,725
<SECURITIES>                                     1,725
<RECEIVABLES>                                  185,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,880)
<INVENTORY>                                     84,456
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               290,563
<PP&E>                                         615,902
<DEPRECIATION>                               (316,485)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 719,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          129,436
<BONDS>                                         24,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,764
<OTHER-SE>                                     459,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   719,780
<SALES>                                        246,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,112
<CGS>                                          155,206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  211,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   627
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,724
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,008
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,008
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48
        

</TABLE>
INDEPENDENT
      REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT




We
      consent to
      the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
      333-117241) pertaining to the Fundtech Ltd. 1997 Israeli Share Option Plan
      for
      the Employees of Fundtech Ltd., the Fundtech Ltd. 1999 Employee Option Plan,
      and
      the Fundtech Ltd. Directors' Option Plan, of our report, dated March 19, 2006,
      with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Fundtech Ltd. included
      in it's Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31,
      2005.






/s/ Brightman
              Almagor & Co.BRIGHTMAN
              ALMAGOR & CO.Certified
                Public Accountants
              A Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
              
              Tel-Aviv, Israel
              June 30, 2006
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > New Worklife Estimates

              																																										United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics.								*New Worklife Estimates : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 2157*.															Washington, D.C: 										U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 												November 1982,												https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5219,				accessed on August 29, 2024.										    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Case No. 5,525.

#### The GOMEZ DE CASTRO.

[10 Ben. 540.] 1

(District Court, E. D. New York.

July, 1879.)

Cargo — Non-Delivery—Drainage or Scgab— Costs.

1. A cargo of sugar was shipped from Bahia to New York in bags. The sugar was green, and the drainage from it on the voyage excessive; the vessel also met with heavy weather. On discharging, many bags were found broken, and new ones were furnished and refilled. A. quantity of sugar was also swept up from the hold, and sold by the crew with the master’s knowledge. The consignee libelled, claiming $1,850 damage for non-delivery of *cargo: Held,*
      *573that he could only" recover for the value of the sweepings sold.

2. A libellant who fails as to the most part of his claim, cannot recover costs.

In admiralty.

Owen & Gray, for libellant.

James K. Hill, for claimant.

BENEDICT, District Judge.

Upon the evidence the libellant can recover no greater sum than the value of the sweepings which • the evidence shows were sold by the crew of .the vessel. The libellant having failed as to the most part of the considerable claim made by him against this vessel, is not entitled to recover costs. There may be a decree for twenty-five dollars, being the amount for which the sweepings were sold by the junk man; or either party may at his own expense have a reference to ascertain the value of the sweepings sold by the crew.
(Reap. Dec. 9454)

#### Gary Valenti *v.*United States

Entry No. 834295.

(Decided June 9, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement was called for hearing. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

*673It is provided by the rules of the court that in such an instance, after the opposite party has had an opportunity to present evidence on the issues, the case may be decided by the court on the record before it.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the present appeal for a reappraisement and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Dismiss; Opinion Filed October 28, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00657

- CV

ANGELA NAILS , Appellant

V. MARK FRELS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 15238



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Fillmore, and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart Appellant, acting pro se, filed a brief in this case on September 17, 2014. The Court sent
a letter to appellant on October 6, 2014, and advised her that her brief did not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The letter listed multiple
deficiencies with appellant’ s brief. The letter also informed appellant that her appeal might be

dismissed without further notice if she failed to file an amended brief complying with our rules

. Rather than filing an amended brief, appellant sent a letter to the Court stating: “I wi ll not
be updating my brief into an amended brief. . . . I want the court to use the brief already mail
[sic] to the Court of Appeals.” Because appellant did not file an amended brief and the brief she– 2

–

did file does not comply with our rules, we dismiss her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1,

42.3(c).

140657F.P05 /Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ANGELA NAILS, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00657

- CV V.
MARK FRELS, Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 15238. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Brown parti cipating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee Mark Frels recover his costs of this appeal from appellant Angela Nails.

Judgment entered this 28th day of October, 2015.