alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-2671

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jason L. Foster

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

____________

Submitted: May 4, 2021

Filed: May 10, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

Jason Foster pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. As part of his plea agreement, he waived “his 

right to appeal his sentence” unless, as relevant here, it exceeded the statutory 
-2- 

maximum. The district court1 gave him a 168-month sentence, which is below the 

statutory maximum. See id. § 841(b)(1)(A). In an Anders brief, Foster’s counsel 

discusses the appeal waiver and the sentence, as well as requests permission to 

withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Upon careful review, we conclude that the waiver is both enforceable and 

applicable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing 

this issue de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en 

banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within 

the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the 

plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a 

miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

82–83 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to 

withdraw.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Missouri.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                 5
<CIK>                                     0000027748
<NAME>                                    DEL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP.


<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUL-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                         244,762
<SECURITIES>                                 1,290,418
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,102,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                   196,018
<INVENTORY>                                 37,693,356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            65,801,389
<PP&E>                                      24,563,974
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,426,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,094,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,215,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       838,385
<OTHER-SE>                                  68,841,275
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                90,094,463
<SALES>                                     33,162,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,162,373
<CGS>                                       19,730,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,730,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,553,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,733,236
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,439,095
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,294,141
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,294,141
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1 Written Consent in Lieu of Special Meeting of Board of Directors


Exhibit 10.1




UNANIMOUS CONSENT IN LIEU OF A SPECIAL MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

SMARTDATA CORPORATION.




The Undersigned, being the sole Director of SmartData Corporation (the Company), hereby takes the following action;




WHEREAS,   The Board of Directors deems it in the best interest of the Company to elect Zachary Bradford to serve as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company.




WHEREAS,   The Board of Directors deems it in the best interest of the Company to elect Zachary Bradford to serve as a Director of the Company.




WHEREAS,   The Board of Directors deems it in the best interest of the Company to issue 530,760 shares of SmartData Corporation Common stock to Zachary Bradford or his designee, for his appointment as the Chief Financial Officer and Director.




WHEREAS, Zachary Bradford has accepted his appointment as the Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company.




THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, Zach Bradford be appointed as the Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company; 




BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that 530,760 shares of common stock be issued in the name of Zach Bradford or his chosen designee; 




BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Unanimous Consent be placed into the minute book of the Company with the proceedings of the Board of Directors and that this consent shall have the same force and effect as if a meeting of the directors were held.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this document to be effective this 6th day of March, 2014.




/s/ Bruce Lybbert

Bruce Lybbert, director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ADAM SOFTWARE, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,353
<SECURITIES>                                     7,964
<RECEIVABLES>                                      715
<ALLOWANCES>                                       356
<INVENTORY>                                        447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,623
<PP&E>                                             630
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,144
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,169
<SALES>                                          1,737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,737
<CGS>                                              243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    198
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                198
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7902

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ZHIVARGO KINTA JENKINS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00204-D-1; 5:11-cv-00605-D)

Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zhivargo Kinta Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., 

Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Zhivargo Kinta Jenkins seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS APPEARING ON PAGE 5 OF FORM 10-Q FOR
SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   38,612,886
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  3,315,252
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      11,003,860
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     2,249,721
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,181,719
<COMMON>                                     1,834,445
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    1,410,779
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         12,162,265
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>              15,407,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                        13,500,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                          14,400,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>              11,874,230
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               55,181,719
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   31,565,369
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         1,690,937
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  27,465,880
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  29,156,817
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                      2,408,552
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             373,504
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               2,782,056
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,057,615
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,724,441
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                5,013,005
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       2,173,554
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4909]



[[Page 9408]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 36, 51, 61 and 69

[CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 96-262, and 96-98; DA 97-333]


Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Common Carrier Bureau of the Federal Communications 
Commission here extends time for parties to comment on issues raised by 
its January 9, 1997 Staff Analysis of economic cost computer models 
submitted in connection with several pending proceedings implementing 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Public Notice setting the 
original comment deadlines was published in the Federal Register on 
February 5, 1997 (62 FR 5373).

DATES: Comments in response to the Public Notice are due February 18, 
1997 <SUP>1, and replies are due February 24, 1997.

    \1\ Note: This document was received at the Office of the 
Federal Register on February 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must file an original and four copies of their 
comments with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission, Room 222, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Konuch, 202-418-0199 or Brad 
Wimmer, 202-418-1847.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Released: February 12, 1997.

Federal Communications Commission
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4909 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
**Exhibit23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-89145, 333-30578,333-14037, 333-71442, 333-49806, 333-67825, 333-35527, 333-104129, 333-110422,333-120183, 33-82894, 333-130675, and 333-136974 on Form S-8; No. 333-66934 onForm S-4; and No. 333-112493 on Form S-3 of BE Aerospace, Inc. of our reportsdated February 14, 2007, relating to the financial statements andfinancial statement schedule of BE Aerospace, Inc. and management’s report onthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of BE Aerospace, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.

 

/s/ Deloitte & ToucheLLPCosta Mesa, CaliforniaFebruary 14, 2007

----
H'~ UH p~ I

tl I~ ~'f ;.' t¡ :,\ U p~ 

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~iJ ~.1M
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

) 

ORDER ON NON-PARTY HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE'S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AD TESTIFICANDUM
 

AND MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

On May 12, 2009, non-pary Hollngsworth & Vose Company ("H&V") filed a motion to 

quash the subpoenas ad testifcandum served on H& V employees, Robert Cullen and Kevin 

Porter. H&V asserts that both of these employees have previously provided deposition 

_ testimony and thus their testimony at trial would be needlessly cumulative. 

Trial in this matter is currently proceeding. On May 14, 2009, in open court, the paries 

agreed to allow these witnesses to appear through deposition testimony and Respondent agreed 

to withdraw these subpoenas. 

Accordingly, H&V's motion to quash is DENIED AS MOOT. 

Also on May 12,2009, H&V filed a motion seeking in camera treatment for the affidavit 

of Joseph F. Sherer in support of 
 its motion to quash. ("Sherer Affidavit"). The Commission's 

Rules of 
 Practice allow paries and non-parties to seek in camera treatment for material offered 

into evidence. 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b) (emphasis added). The Sherer Affidavit is not being offered 

into evidence, thus in camera treatment is procedurally incorrect. The Sherer Affidavit is, 

instead, governed by Commission Rules 3.22(b) and 3.45(e), which allow paries and non-parties 

to file a confidential version of any document fied in a Part III proceeding. 16 C.F.R. 

§§ 3.22(b), 3.45(e). ' 

Accordingly, H&V's motion for in camera treatment is DENIED. 

ORDERED: :: Yh (~t4


D. Michael Chapp 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: May 14, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4808]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. MG97-11-000]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Amendment

February 21, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 13, 1997, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) amended its February 3, 1997 revised standards 
of conduct to incorporate changes to its list of marketing affiliates.
    Texas Gas states that it has served copies of its revised standards 
of conduct upon each person designated on the official service list 
compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to 
intervene or protest should be filed on or before March 10, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4808 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
254 La. 864

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lucille BRUCE.

No. 50213.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 1969.

In re: Lucille Bruce applying for'writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writs refused. Defendant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of conviction.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 4501** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JUVENILE MALE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distr ict of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Robert G. Doumar , Senior District Judge. ( 2:10

- cr - 00036

- RGD

- FBS

- 1 )

Submitted : September 23, 2010 Decided: October 13 , 2010

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Andrew A. Protogyrou, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, William D. Muhr, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opini ons are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: By way of this interlocutory appeal, Juvenile Male (“J.M.”), who was sixteen years old when he was charged as a delinquent, *

We conclude the Government’s assertion t hat th ere was a substantial f ederal interest at stake was sufficient. See United States v. T.M. , 413 F.3d 420, 424

- 27 (4th Cir. 2005). We further conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Government’s motion to transfer the case to adult criminal proceedings

. United States v. Juvenile Male , 554 F.3d 456, 460, 468 (4th Cir. 2009). The nature of the charges challenges the district court’s order granting the Government’s motio n to transfer proceedings against a juvenile to adult criminal proceedings. J.M. claims that the Government’s certification to proceed under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was insufficient because it failed to properly asser t that the re was a substantial f ederal interest. He also claims the district court abused its discretion in granting the Government’s motion to transfer the case to adult criminal proceedings. Finding no error, we affirm.

* 18 U.S.C. § 5038(e) (2006) provides that “[u]nless a juvenile

. . . is prosecuted as an adult nei ther the name nor picture of any juvenile shall be made public in connection with a juvenile delinquency proceeding.”3 clearly warranted the transfer

. United States v. Robinson , 404 F.3d 850, 858 (4th Cir. 2005). We also conclude the co urt did not clearly err in finding J.M. ’s leadership role in the offense and his response to rehabilitative efforts warranted transfer.
See 18 U.S.C. § 5032 (2006). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument bec ause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED