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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11224

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANDRES SILVA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-153-13

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Andres Silva has moved for leave to 

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Silva

has filed a response and has moved for the appointment of new counsel. The 

record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of

Silva’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11224 Document: 00513721808 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
No. 15-11224

2

consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States 

v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Silva’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Silva’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is 

DENIED.

 Case: 15-11224 Document: 00513721808 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19694]



[[Page 45922]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Docket Numbers: EC18-150-000.
    Applicants: Noble Altona Windpark, LLC, Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, 
Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC, Noble Clinton Windpark I, LLC, Noble 
Ellenburg Windpark, LLC, Noble Wethersfield Windpark, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the 
Federal Power Act, et al. of Noble Altona Windpark, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 9/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20180904-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1428-003.
    Applicants: Tilton Energy LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement Compliance Filing to be 
effective 10/12/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/18.
    Accession Number: 20180831-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2359-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata Filing to Second Revised ISA 
SA No. 2832; Queue No. AC1-181 to be effective 8/8/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20180904-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2377-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Application for Waivers and for Approval of Customer 
Credit Mechanism for Pipeline Refund Amounts of Southwestern Public 
Service Company.
    Filed Date: 9/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20180904-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2378-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-09-05_SA 3143 Blazing 
Star-NSPM E&P (J460) to be effective 9/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 9/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180905-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/26/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 5, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19694 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ray Haynes, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose L. Rubin, J.), rendered September 22, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted following a buy and bust operation, during which he sold to an undercover police officer two vials of crack cocaine in return for $10 in pre-recorded buy money.

Defendant argues that certain of the prosecutor’s comments in summation were so prejudicial that they deprived him of a fair trial. His arguments have not been preserved as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]), and were we to consider them in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, finding them to be without merit.

A prosecutor is permitted wide latitude in commenting upon the evidence and drawing fair inferences from it *(People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396), and may fairly respond to arguments raised in the defense summation *(People v Trinidad,*59 NY2d 820, 821).

The Court also properly admitted into evidence the money recovered from the person to whom defendant handed the buy money. While the money would be inadmissible had defendant been charged only with a single discrete sale of drugs *(People v Jones,*62 AD2d 356), here, defendant was charged not only with the sale of drugs, but also with possession of other drugs with the intent to sell, and thus the cash recovered was admissible as relevant to establish intent *(People v Bell,*160 AD2d 477, *lv denied*76 NY2d 784). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00305-CR

NO. 02-14-00306-CR

NO. 02-14-00307-CR

NO. 02-14-00308-CR

IVERY GENE WILLIAMS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NOS. 1295114D, 1300732D, 1300733D, 1300734D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Ivery Gene Williams appeals judgments adjudicating him guilty 

of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentencing him to seven years’

confinement.

Williams’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw 

and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his professional 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

opinion, these appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the 

requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of 

the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). This court informed Williams that he could file a 

pro se response to the Anders brief, but he did not do so. The State did not 

submit a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on 

the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this 

court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 

904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may 

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–

83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with 

counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing 

in the record that might arguably support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 

684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

/s/ Bill Meier

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE
3

PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 25, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 686 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 686

To extend the right of appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board to 
         certain employees of the United States Postal Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 9, 2013

   Mr. Pryor introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the right of appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board to 
         certain employees of the United States Postal Service.

    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 ``Postal Employee Appeal Rights 
Amendments Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. RIGHT OF APPEAL TO MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD.

    Section 1005(a)(4)(A)(ii)(I) of title 39, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
                    ``(I) is a career or noncareer employee of the 
                Postal Service who--
                            ``(aa) is not represented by a bargaining 
                        representative recognized under section 1203; 
                        and
                            ``(bb) is in a supervisory, professional, 
                        technical, clerical, administrative, or 
                        managerial position covered by the Executive 
                        and Administrative Schedule; and''.
                                 <all>
```
ACCEPTED 03-14-00374-CV 4035747 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/5/2015 12:46:53 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK CAUSE NO. 03 - 14 -00374 - CV C & M JONES INVESTMENTS LP 

### * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

## * * 

## v. * THIRD DISTRICT 

### * 

## * DONOVAN THOMAS 

## * TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Now comes C & M JONES INVESTMENTS LP , Appellee, by and through their attorney of record, who requests that the Court grant an extension of time to file Appellee's Reply Brief and in support shows as follows: I. The deadline for filing Appellants' Brief was on February 5 , 2015. II. Appellee is requesting an extension of 14 days to complete Appellee ' s Brief because the death of Appellee counsel's grandmother. Specifically, Appellee's counsel has had to travel out of the area to attend services and make arrangements. This is Appellee's additional extension for time to file Reply Brief. WHEREFORE , PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellants request an extension until February 19, 2015.Respectfully submitted,

# ~ Attorney for Appellant 174 S. Guadalupe, Suite 106 San Marcos , Texas 78666 Telephone : 512

- 353

- 3803 Fax: 512

- 353 -7 483 cliffwmccormack @ gmail.com SBN 00 7 92683 SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED TO by Cliff McCormack on the 5th day of February 2015.**,,,,~~ ~;** **,** DAN MCCORMA C K**.,~ 'X** **;::- ~**  Not ary Pu blic
. State of Te xas o**·.~** ...**~~** M y C o mmiSS I On Exp1res**-=:.~;,.,,~~~.o** Jun e 01,2015

'''1111'''' 

# -?J/J r 1 /
. - 

### A

# 0~//1**·** Notary Public , State ofTexas
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been delivered to Donovan Thomason the 

## s'" day of February 2015 via

### f~

Cliff McCormack CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that I have previously con rred or attempted to confer with Donovan Thomas.

Cliff McCormack

2
#### In the Matter of CBH Pioneer Enterprises, Inc., Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

?Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review an amended determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority dated September 22, 1989, which, after a hearing, suspended the petitioner’s license to sell liquor for a period of 30 days and imposed a $1,000 bond forfeiture.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law and as a matter of discretion, to the extent that the penalty imposed is annulled, the amended determination is otherwise confirmed, the proceeding is otherwisé dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the respondent New York State Liquor Authority for the imposition of a new penalty not to exceed a suspension of the petitioner’s license for more than 30 days (20 days forthwith and 10 days deferred).

The respondent New York State Liquor Authority adopted the findings of the Hearing Officer crediting the testimony of witnesses to the effect that the petitioner permitted the sale of an alcoholic beverage to a minor and permitted gambling on the premises in the form of a Joker Poker video machine. We find that the amended determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176; *Matter of Plato’s Cave Corp. v State Liq. Auth.,*68 NY2d 791; *Matter of MNDN Rest. v Gazzara,*128 AD2d 781; *Matter of New York Pan Pizza Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*150 AD2d 694).

We conclude that the penalty imposed is excessive to the extent indicated. Under the circumstances, including the petitioner’s prior unblemished record, the penalty imposed should not exceed a suspension of the petitioner’s license for 30 days (20 days forthwith and 10 days deferred). No bond forfeiture should be imposed *(see, Felle v Duffy,*159 AD2d 458; *Matter of Levittown Events v Duffy,*135 AD2d 539; *cf., Matter of 596 Main St. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*141 AD2d 643; *Matter of Leewood Beverage Center v State Liq. Auth.,*139 *521AD2d 649; *Matter of New York Pan Pizza Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., supra).*

We find the petitioner’s remaining contention to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

[            ] AMENDMENT TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This First
Amendment to Employment Agreement (“First Amendment”) is made by and between Inteliquent, Inc. (the “Company”) and
[                    ] (the “Executive”). This First Amendment is made as of February 11, 2016. 

BACKGROUND 
 A. The
Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated [                    ] (collectively, the “Agreement”). 

B. The parties wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the following change. 

THE AGREEMENT 
 In
consideration of (i) Executive’s right to continued employment and (ii) Executive’s right to participate in the Company’s long term equity incentive program for 2016, the parties agree as follows: 

1. Definitions. All capitalized terms not defined in this First Amendment have the same meanings given to those terms in the Agreement.

 2. Section 2.3. The following new Section 2.3 is hereby added to the Agreement: 

Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, any incentive-based compensation, or any other compensation, paid to the
Executive pursuant to this Agreement or any other agreement or arrangement with the Company that is subject to recovery under any law, government regulation or stock exchange listing requirement, will be subject to such deduction or clawback as may
be required to be made pursuant to such law, government regulation or stock exchange listing requirement (or any policy adopted by the Company pursuant to any such law, government regulation or stock exchange listing requirement). The Company will
make any determination for clawback or recovery in its sole discretion and in accordance with any applicable law or regulation. 
 3.
Section References. Section titles used in this First Amendment have no substantive meaning and are not a part of the parties’ agreement. 

4. Successors and Assigns. This First Amendment is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigns of
the parties. 
 5. Entire Agreement. Except as expressly modified by this First Amendment, the Agreement is and will remain in full
force and effect in accordance with its terms and constitutes the legal and binding obligations of the Company and Executive. This First Amendment, including the Agreement, is the complete agreement of the parties and supersedes any prior agreements
or representations, whether oral or written, with respect to the subject matter of this First Amendment 
 [Signatures on Next Page]








 The Company and Executive have executed this First Amendment as of the date first set forth
above. 
  

									
	Inteliquent, Inc.	 		 		 	
					
	By:	 	  
	 		 	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	[                    ]	 		 		 	[                    ]
	Title: 	 	[                    ]
Exhibit 10.10






Exhibit 10.10
AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED OWENS & MINOR, INC. MANAGEMENT EQUITY OWNERSHIP PROGRAM AND STOCK OWNERSHIP REWARDS PROGRAM


This Amendment (“Amendment”) is effective as of January 1, 2014 and is an amendment to the Amended and Restated Owens & Minor, Inc. Management Equity Ownership Program and Stock Ownership Rewards Program (the “MEOP”).   Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to them in the MEOP.
The MEOP shall be amended as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 3.1 Five-Year Ownership Requirement. In Section 3.1  of the MEOP, the Tier One Participant and Tier Two Participant definitions  shall be amended and restated to read as follows:




Position                Ownership Multiple of Base Salary


		
	I.
	Tier One Participants (each, a “Tier One Participant”)




Chief Executive Officer                    6.0X
President                        3.0X
Executive Vice President                2.0X
Senior Vice President                    1.5%
Corporate Vice President, Group Vice President, 
Regional Vice President                    1.0X


Other Management Level Teammates
who are Participants                As designated by the Committee


		
	II.
	Tier Two Participants (each, a “Tier Two Participant”)






Management Level Teammates designated by
the Committee                        0.5X


		
	2.
	Section IV (a) Equity Ownership Dividends. The following sentence shall be added to the end of Section IV (a):  “Notwithstanding any other provision in this Section IV (a) to the contrary, effective for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2014, all Tier One Equity Ownership Dividends shall be discontinued and no Tier One Equity Ownership 











Dividend shall be earned by or issued to any Tier One Participant for any calendar year ending after December 31, 2013.”  


    
		
	3.
	Section IV(b)  Tier Two participants.  To reflect the 3-for-2 split of the Common Stock on March 31, 2010 ( in accordance with Section 7.5 of the MEOP), the first sentence of Section IV (b) shall be formally amended to change the Tier Two Equity Ownership Dividend award amounts from 100, 150 and 200 shares of Restricted Stock to 150, 225 and 300 shares of Restricted Stock.  




		
	4.
	No Other Changes.  Except as set forth in this Amendment, no other changes are made to the MEOP, the remaining terms of which shall remain in effect as written.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.1 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, BG Dix, Month the Military Child, DLA Distribution Puget Sound, dla, cdc, AWARDS, People and Culture, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

THERESE M. GREIM, NICOLE GREIM, A 

MINOR, BY THERESE M. GREIM, 

GUARDIAN, AND EVAN GREIM, 

 Petitioners 

 v. 

MARY V.Z. WACHTERHAUSER AND 

JESSICA SIROLLY, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 70 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.