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

No. 13

- 10205 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
WAYNE ANTHONY TURNER , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 195

- 1

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Wayne Anthony Turner appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of forged securities and aiding and abetting the possession of forged
securities. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 513(a). The district court sentenced Turner to 120 months of imprisonment, above the guidelines range of 46 to 57 months. Turner argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court based the upward variance on prior convictions involving only

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 27, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10205 Document: 00512642223 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2014No. 13

- 10205

minor offenses and because the district court relied primarily on what it considered the inadequate sentences imposed in those cases. He further
contends that , because the district court relied on those prior convictions in imposing a sentence outside the guidelines range, it subjected Turner to double jeopardy in v iolation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
In setting a sentence above the guidelines range, the district court considered , as it may, Turner’s prior convictions and numerous reoffenses following light sentences

. See United States v. Herrera

- Ga rduno , 51 9 F.3d 526, 531 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lee , 358 F.3d 315, 328

- 29 (5th Cir. 2004)

. The district court’s consideration of such prior criminal conduct does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Sekou v. Blackburn , 796 F.2d 108, 112 (5th Cir. 1986 ). Furthermore, a s to the extent of the variance , we have upheld similar upward variances in prior cases

. United States v. Brantley , 537 F.3d 347, 348

- 50 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Jones , 444 F.3d 430, 433, 441

- 42 (5th Cir. 2006) . Turner has failed to show that the district court abused its
discretion in setting his sentence

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

. Turner additionally argues that he was denied his right to counsel when an attorney who was the law partner and son of his appointed counsel represented him in the sentencing phase without his consent or the district court’s authorization. While such unauthorized substitution may be inadvisable and not compensable, we find no authority for rever sing on that ground. To the extent that the circumstances in this matter may give rise to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984) , Turner has made no such argument to this court

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-10205 Document: 00512642223 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2014
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66442-66443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2012-OS-0133]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Records.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is deleting a systems 
of record notice from its existing inventory of record systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
December 6, 2012 unless comments are received which result in a 
contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before December 
5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark 
Center Drive, East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-
3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.

[[Page 66443]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard, Privacy Act 
Officer, Office of Freedom of Information, Washington Headquarters 
Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155 or by 
telephone at (571) 372-0461.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The 
proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the 
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the 
submission of a new or altered system report.

    Dated: October 31, 2012.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
DELETION:
DWHS P48
    Biographies of OSD, WHS, and JS Officials (August 23, 2004, 69 FR 
51813).
Reason:
    Based on a recent review of DWHS P48, Biographies of OSD, WHS, and 
JS Officials, it has been determined that the OSD CIO no longer has any 
records collected under this system of records notice. Components were 
notified on September 24, 2012 to identify if such records were being 
maintained by their Component. No affirmative responses were received 
therefore this system can now be deleted.
[FR Doc. 2012-26916 Filed 11-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 215 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 215

 To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to prohibit the 
 imposition of a nondisclosure agreement as a condition of the payment 
 of any award or settlement in connection with a violation of such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2021

 Mr. Stewart introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to prohibit the 
 imposition of a nondisclosure agreement as a condition of the payment 
 of any award or settlement in connection with a violation of such Act.

    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 ``Victims' Voice and Transparency 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING IMPOSITION OF NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT AS CONDITION 
              OF AWARD OR SETTLEMENT UNDER CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY 
              ACT OF 1995.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 401 of the Congressional Accountability 
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1401) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
    ``(h) Prohibiting Imposition of Nondisclosure Agreements.--A 
nondisclosure agreement may not be imposed on any party as a condition 
of the payment of any award or settlement in connection with a 
violation of part A of title II.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to awards and settlements paid in connection with 
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 on or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### David S. HUFFMAN, Petitioner, v. Louis L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 73-633.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 21, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### In re Rudy VILLALBA, father of Douglas Villalba.

No. 71-891.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 18, 1973.

Appeal from Juvenile Court, Broward County; Stephen R. Booker, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1881 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1881

   To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to 
               permitting terms, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2021

 Mr. Garamendi (for himself and Mr. Calvert) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to 
               permitting terms, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) 
              TERMS.

    Section 402(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(B) are for fixed terms--
                    ``(i) not exceeding 10 years, for a permit issued 
                to a State or municipality; and
                    ``(ii) not exceeding 5 years, for a permit issued 
                to any person not described in clause (i); and''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10876 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. MICHAEL SHANOWAT Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-3-11 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Michael Shanowat has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Shanowat has not filed a response. Our independent reviewofthe record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
Exhibit 10.1.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND
RESTATED


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTATED EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT (this “First Amendment”) is made effective as of the 1st day of January 2017, by and between OLD
LINE BANK, a Maryland-chartered commercial bank (the “Bank “ or Employer”) and JAMES W. CORNELSEN, (the “Employee”).
This First Amendment amends in certain respects that certain Restated Employment Agreement dated December 10, 2015, between the
Bank and Employee, (the “Original Restated Employment Agreement”).


 


 


		1.	Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to
them in the Original Restated Agreement.



 


		2.	Amendments. The Original Restated Agreement is hereby amended as follows:



 


 


		a.	The following sentence is hereby added to the end of Section 3.1 of the Original Restated Agreement:



 


“As of January 1, 2017, the Board extended
the Term for one additional year, such that, as of such date, the Term was to expire as of March 31, 2021.


 


		b.	The first sentence of Section 4.1 (a) of the Original Restated Agreement is hereby amended by deleting said section in its
entirety and replacing it with the following:



 


		(a)	“Base Salary”. During the Term the Employee will receive a base salary at the rate of $616,577.00 per annum,
payable in substantially equal installments in accordance with the Bank’s regular payroll practices (“Base Salary”).



 


		c.	The section identified as Section 4.1 (b)(ii) of the original Restated Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety.



 


 


All of the provisions of the Original Restated Agreement are
incorporated herein by reference and shall remain and continue in full force and effect as amended by the Third Amendment.


 


		3.	Counterparts. The amendment may be executive in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original
for all purposed but all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument.



 




     


     


    




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this
First Amendment, under seal, as of February 23, 2017 effective as of January 1, 2017.


 


 





	WITNESS/ATTEST:	 	OLD LINE BANK
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Cathy A. Coughlin	 	By: /s/ Gregory S. Proctor
	Cathy A. Coughlin	 	Gregory S. Proctor
	Senior Vice President	 	Acting,
Chairman of Compensation Committee
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	WITNESS:	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Cathy A. Coughlin	 	/s/ James W. Cornelsen
	Cathy A. Coughlin	 	James W. Cornelsen
* 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. 96-30898

Summary Calendar

 

TERRY J. DORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MOVABLE PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1315 E

- - - - - - - - - -

August 29, 1997

Before REAVLEY, KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Terry J. Dore has appealed the district court’s refusal to

order a new trial in his Jones Act case. Dore contends that the

district court erred in permitting defense counsel to exhibit to

the jury poster-sized enlargements of job descriptions contained

in the occupational titles handbook, which were not in evidence. 

Dore contends that he was prejudiced because the trial court had

excluded testimony by his vocational expert and he was not able

to rebut defendant’s argument. 
No. 96-30898

- 2 -

The district court’s refusal to grant a new trial is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Maldonado v. Missouri

Pacific Ry. Co., 798 F.2d 764, 771 (5th Cir. 1986). “When

counsel for either party makes an improper statement during

trial, this court must determine whether the remark impaired a

substantial right of the objecting party.” Winter v. Brenner

Tank, Inc., 926 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation

marks omitted). To warrant a new trial, counsel’s misconduct

must be so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire

proceeding. Id. Dore failed to object to the demonstrative aids

and to counsel’s closing argument and did not move the trial

court for a mistrial. See id. (failure to move for mistrial

suggests that any lingering prejudice was minimal) (citing United

States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 959 (5th Cir. 1990)); see

also Maldonado, 798 F.2d at 771 (litigant’s failure to move for a

mistrial may be a factor favoring affirmance). The trial court

instructed the jury that it should decide the case on the

evidence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion for a new trial. 

AFFIRMED.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








To the Board of Directors of:


Sino Oil & Gas Pipe Holdings Limited


(Formerly Rich Mountain Enterprises Limited)








We hereby consent to the inclusion in the foregoing Amendment No. 1 to Form 20-F (No. 000-53939) of our report dated July 30, 2011, with respect to our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Rise King Management Limited and subsidiaries as of and for the years ended April 30, 2010 and 2009.  We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts”.







WEINBERG & COMPANY, P.A.

Certified Public Accountants







Boca Raton, Florida


October 19, 2011
Exhibit 10.9


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


LICENSE AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment (the
 "Amendment") to that certain License and Supply Agreement, dated March 10, 2015, (the "Agreement") by
and between JOURNEY MEDICAL CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware ("Journey")
and BLU CARIBE, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Puerto Rico ("Blu"), is made effective
as of August 26, 2015 (the "Amendment Effective Date"). Blu and Journey are each referred to individually as a "Party"
and together as the "Parties."


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged by both Parties, the Parties agree as
follows:


 


		1.	Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, initially capitalized terms used
herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.



 


		2.	Section 5.1. Section 5.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following new Section
5.1(c):



 


(c) Upon or following Blu filing with
the FDA a Prior Approval Supplement that (i) is for the 50mg version of the Journey Product and (ii) has been pre-approved in writing
by Blu ("PAS"), Journey will pay to the FDA on behalf of Blu the respective filing fee in the amount of $[***] (the "Filing
Payment"). The Filing Payment will be creditable against Journey Revenue Share payments due to Blu under this Agreement."


 


		3.	No Other Modifications. Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, the terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. No waiver of the performance of any obligation under this Amendment
shall be effective unless it has been given in writing and signed by the Party giving such waiver. No provision of this Amendment may
be amended or modified other than by a written document signed by authorized representatives of each Party.



 


THIS AMENDMENT AND THE AGREEMENT AS
AMENDED BY THIS AMENDMENT SET FORTH THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF, AND
SUPERCEDES ALL PRIOR DISCUSSIONS, AGREEMENTS AND WRITINGS IN RELATION THERETO.


 


		4.	Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without reference to any rules of conflict of laws.



 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 






    1


     


    

  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Parties intending to be bound have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.


 


	JOURNEY MEDICAL CORPORATION	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/ Claude Maraoui	 
	Name:	Claude Maraoui	 
	Title:	President & CEO	 
	 	 
	 	 
	BLU CARIBE, INC.	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/ Bill Luster	 
	Name:	Bill Luster	 
	Title:	President	 



  






    2
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the quarterly report of The Connecticut Light and Power Company (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Cheryl W. Grisé, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant and David R. McHale, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the registrant.


|    |                        
|--- | -----------------------
|/s/ | Cheryl W. Grisé        
|    | Cheryl W. Grisé        
|    | Chief Executive Officer




|    |                                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------
|/s/ | David R. McHale                                  
|    | David R. McHale                                  
|    | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 4, 2006  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Treasury approves New Mexico’s plan to invest $117 million of CPF funding 

in broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality internet 

to locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

New Mexico

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Program Summary: $117 million for Broadband Infrastructure (88% of CPF allocation)

 Locations to Be Served: 40,611 (estimated)

 Program Description: The Connect New Mexico Broadband 

grant program is a competitive grant program designed to 

build broadband infrastructure to areas of the state without 

access to reliable wireline service.

‒ The program is designed to provide internet service with 

speeds of 100/100 Mbps symmetrical to households and businesses upon project 

completion.

‒ Each of the internet service providers funded by the program will participate in the FCC’s 

Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy for low-income families. 

 Key State Contact: The New Mexico Office of Broadband Access and Expansion (OBAE)

New Mexico Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

As reported by New Mexico, 

estimates show that 

investments made using the 

Capital Projects Fund will 

serve ~21% of locations 

still lacking high-speed 

internet access in the state.

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information