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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11309

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SCOTT BRANDON HUTCHESON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-59

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Scott Brandon Hutcheson appeals the sentence following his guilty plea 

conviction for aiding and abetting the transportation of child pornography.

Hutcheson maintains that the district court plainly erred in its relevant 

conduct determination. He contends that the district court should not have 

treated his prior uploading to YouTube of a video involving child pornography 

as relevant conduct that could be used to determine the number of images

 

* 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

July 31, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11309 Document: 00513136783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/31/2015
No. 14-11309

2

involved in this offense for purposes of an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 2G2.2(b)(7)(A). The record reflects that the previous uploading of the video

and the instant offense both involved the transportation of child pornography, 

concerned images of young boys, and shared a modus operandi of electronically 

transmitting child pornography over the internet to appear on social-media 

websites. Because the prior uploading of the video was connected to the instant 

offense by at least one common factor, it was part of a “common scheme or plan”

and was relevant conduct for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. See

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). Hutcheson therefore cannot show clear or obvious error 

by the district court. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

Furthermore, Hutcheson argues that the district court erred in requiring 

that he submit to plethysmograph testing as a special condition of supervised 

release. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but 

he raises it to preserve it for further appellate review. Hutcheson is correct 

that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 227 (5th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 681 (2013), which held that a defendant’s 

challenge to a supervised release condition requiring him to participate in a 

sex offender treatment program, which included the possibility of submitting 

to psycho-physiological testing, was not ripe for review on direct appeal. A

panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another without en banc 

reconsideration or a superseding Supreme Court decision. United States v. 

Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 & n.34 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-11309 Document: 00513136783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/31/2015
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard COLEMAN.

No. 89-KH-1297.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Coleman, Richard; — Defendant/s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 125,063; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 21028-KH.

Denied. No particularized need shown.
Summary of Fiscal Year 2005 Board of Directors' Compensation/Fees.



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Health Management Associates, Inc. 
 Summary of Fiscal Year 2005 Board of Directors’ Compensation/Fees 
  
 Only the independent Directors of Health Management Associates, Inc. (the “Company”) receive compensation for their service to the Company in
such capacity. For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, the Company’s independent Director compensation and fees are as set forth below. 
  
 Cash Compensation 
  
 The Company pays each independent Director $10,000 per quarter for service as a Director. The Chairperson of each of the Audit Committee, Compensation
Committee and Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee receive an additional $5,000 per year. 
  
 In addition, independent Directors receive $5,000 for each Board of Directors’ meeting attended. Committee members also receive the following fees
per meeting: $5,000 for each Executive Committee meeting attended; $3,000 for each Audit Committee meeting attended; $1,500 for each Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee meeting attended; and $1,500 for each Compensation Committee meeting
attended. 
  
 Stock Options 
  
 Under the Company’s Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors, the
Company is authorized to grant each independent Director a ten year option to purchase shares of its common stock at an exercise price equal to the market price of such common stock on the date of grant. On May 24, 2005, the Company granted each of
its independent Directors a stock option to purchase up to 5,000 shares of its common stock. The Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors, including all material amendments, is included with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended September 30, 2004 as Exhibits 10.9, 10.12, 10.26, 10.29 and 10.30. The form of Director Stock Option Agreement is included with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2004 as Exhibit 10.35. 

 
 Expense Reimbursement 
  
 The Company reimburses all Directors for reasonable expenses incurred by
them in connection with attending Board and Committee meetings. 
  

 1
#### LEWIS A. LIZOTTE *v.*RICK C. WELKER ET AL.

(SC 15681)

Callahan, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and McDonald, Js.

Argued December 4, 1997

officially released March 17, 1998

*James W. Sherman,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Richard C. Robinson,*for the appellees (defendant Ralph W. Williams, Jr., et al.).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal by the plaintiff, Lewis Lizotte, arises out of a dispute concerning several allegedly defamatory articles published in the Journal Inquirer newspaper of Manchester regarding the events *157surrounding the Enfield planning and zoning commission’s granting of the plaintiffs application to construct 368 condominium units in the town of Enfield. The plaintiff filed a three count complaint alleging that the publication of the articles by the defendants1 had resulted in severe damage to him and to his reputation.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not established the existence of any genuine issue of material fact and, “as a matter of law, that the statements made by the defendants are not libelous.” *Lizotte*v. Welker, 45 Conn. Sup. 217, 234, 709 A.2d 50 (1996).

The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c). On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute as to the veracity of the contents of several of the articles; and (2) the statements in the remaining articles were not libelous.

Our examination of the record and our review of the briefs and arguments of the parties on appeal persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The issues regarding the underlying factual disputes and the nondefamatory nature of the articles were resolved properly in the trial court’s thoughtful *158and comprehensive memorandum of decision. *Lizotte*v. *Welker,*supra, 45 Conn. Sup. 217. Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in the present appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. *See Molnar v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act,*239 Conn. 233, 235, 685 A.2d 1107 (1996); *Val-Pak of Central Connecticut North, Inc.*v. *Commissioner of Revenue Services,*235 Conn. 737, 740, 669 A.2d 1211 (1996).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

 The original defendants were the Journal Inquirer, several employees of the Journal Inquirer, and two private citizens from Enfield, Rick C. Welker and Susan Olender, both of whom had written published letters to the editor of the Journal Inquirer criticizing the handling of the plaintiffs zoning application. The cases against Welker and Olender were dismissed in 1992. The remaining defendants will be referred to as the defendants throughout this opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20677

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HAKIM IBN AHMAD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-679-5

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Hakim Ibn Ahmad 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). 

Ahmad has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant 

portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ahmad’s response. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* 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

December 2, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20677 Document: 00512853702 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2014
No. 13-20677

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

2

 Case: 13-20677 Document: 00512853702 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2014
#### George Herman THOMAS, Jr. v. STATE.

6 Div. 357.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Sept. 8, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1987.

Charles M. Law, Montgomery, for appellant.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Jean Williams Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

McMillan, judge.

This is an appeal from the summary denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis wherein the appellant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. In his petition, he states that he was convicted under the reckless murder statute, Section 13A-6-2(a)(2), *Code of Alabama*(1975). He argues that the State’s evidence, however, proved that his conduct was directed toward one individual rather than human life in general. Therefore, he contends that his counsel was ineffective for not making the appropriate motion for acquittal at the close of the State’s case.

*Boatwright v. State,*471 So.2d 1257 (Ala.1985), held that an appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when his petition is meritorious on its face and, if true, its allegations would entitle him to relief. The appellant is entitled to a hearing on his petition. In *Northington v. State,*413 So.2d 1169, 1170-71 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), this Court stated as follows:

> “Reckless homicide manifesting extreme indifference to human life (13A-6-2(a)(2)) must be distinguished from purposeful or knowing murder (13A-6-2(aXl)). See American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries, Part II, Section 210.2 (1980). Under whatever name, the doctrine of universal malice, depraved heart murder, or reckless homicide manifesting extreme indifference to human life is intended to embrace those cases where a person has no deliberate intent to kill or injure any *particular*individual. *Napier v. State,*357 So.2d 1001, 1007 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), reversed on other grounds, 357 So.2d 1011 (Ala.1978). ‘The element of “extreme indifference to human life” by definition, does not address itself to the life of the victim, but to human life generally.’ *People By and Through Russel v. District Court For Fourth Judicial District,*185 Colo. 78, 521 P.2d 1254, 1256 (1974).”

The appellant’s argument, if true, probably would have resulted in a different outcome in his trial and his representation might have fallen below an objective standard; thus, the appellant has met the requirement of *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). He should have been granted a hearing to determine whether he was indeed denied effective assistance of counsel.

*641This case is reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions that a hearing be held on the appellant’s petition.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.
### NUMBER 13

- 1 9

- 00 590

- CR



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

JESUS ANGEL REBOLLAR

, A ppellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On Appeal from the 139 th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's second motion for extension of time

to file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on June 5 , 2020

, and

appellant was previously granted one extension

.

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's second motion for

extension of time to file the brief and the extension previously granted in this cause, is of2 the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's second motion for extensio n of time

to file the brief should be granted with order. The Court looks with disfavor upon the delay

caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter and f urther motions for

extension of time will not be granted absent additional exigent circumstances

.

Appellant's second motion for extension of time to file the brief is hereby

GRANTED , and the Honorable Traci L. Evans , counsel for appellant, is hereby

ORDERED to file the appellate brief with this Court on or before February 1 6 , 202 1

.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

30th day of December, 2020.
EXHIBIT 10.11

                     INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LTD.
                            RICHMOND BUSINESS CENTRE
                             NORTH BRUNSWICK STREET
                                DUBLIN 7, IRELAND

Joseph DelVecchio
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Medical Technology & Innovations, Inc.
Medical Technology, Inc
Steridyne Corporation
3725 Investment Lane
Riviera Beach, FL 33404 USA

June 6, 2000

Dear Mr. DelVecchio:

You have been notified by International  Investment  Partners,  Ltd. (Delaware),
located in  Lancaster,  PA, USA, of its  dissolution  as of May 30,  2000.  As a
result  of  the  dissolution,  its  agency  relationship  with  my  company  has
terminated. That company acted as the agent for my company in the Loan Agreement
and associated  agreements with your companies,  dated January 21, 2000. Because
of the termination of that agency  relationship,  it is necessary to amend those
loan documents to substitute my company as the Lender.

The relationship  between your companies and my company,  as the principal under
those  agreements,  continues  as  before.  This  letter is to  confirm  that my
company,  rather  than its  former  agent,  is the  Lender in those  agreements.
Otherwise,  there are no  changes to the  agreements.  All  obligations  of your
companies to the Lender (now to be recited as set forth below) remain as before.

The Loan  Agreement,  the Note,  the  General  Security  Agreement,  the  Patent
Collateral  Assignment  and Security  Agreement,  the  Guaranty  and  Suretyship
Agreement of Medical Technology, Inc., and the Guaranty and Suretyship Agreement
of Steridyne  Corporation do not need to be modified other than to show that the
Lender is:

                      International Investment Partners, Ltd
                      Richmond Business Centre
                      North Brunswick Street
                      Dublin 7, Ireland


Your  acknowledgement  of this letter, and your agreement to the substitution of
the identity of the Lender,  will be adequate to amend those agreements  without
having to rewrite the entire document group.

If you agree with this  substitution  and amendment,  kindly sign both copies of
this letter, and return one copy to me.

Truly yours,
/s/ Harry McGinn
Harry McGinn
President
International Investment Partners, Ltd.

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO: /s/ Joseph DelVecchio
                           ---------------------------------------
                           Joseph DelVecchio
                           Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
                           Medical Technology & Innovations, Inc.
                           Medical Technology, Inc.
                           Steridyne Corporation
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 31

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting

the President the authority to exercise an item veto of individual appropriations in an appropriations bill

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 5, 1999

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States granting the President the authority to exercise

an item veto of individual appropriations in an appropriations bill

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the

4 following article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

SJ 31 IS

1 States within 7 years after the date of its submission by

2 the Congress:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The President shall have the power to

5 disapprove any appropriation of an appropriations bill at

6 the time the President approves the bill. The appropria7 tions in the bill not disapproved shall become law upon

8 approval by the President.

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. If the President disapproves an appro10 priation pursuant to this article, in signing the bill con11 taining the appropriation, the President shall return a

12 copy of the disapproved appropriation, with a statement

13 of the reasons for the disapproval, to the House in which

14 the appropriations bill originated. The House in which the

15 appropriations bill originated may then reconsider the dis16 approved appropriation in a bill as provided for a bill re17 turned by the President under section 7 of article I. If

18 the bill is approved as provided under section 7 of article

19 I it shall become law.’’.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War has scheduled a meeting on April 9-11, 2012, in Room 230 at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and end at 4 p.m. on April 9 and from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on April 10 and 11.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of benefits under Title 38, United States Code, for Veterans who are former prisoners of war, and to make recommendations on the needs of such Veterans for compensation, health care, and rehabilitation.

On April 9, the Committee will hear from its Chairman and receive a briefing on the Employee Education System and annual ethics training. On April 10, the Committee will receive additional briefings by its Chairman, the Under Secretary of Benefits, and the Director, Compensation Service. They will also receive briefings on the Robert E. Mitchell Center; home care programs available to former prisoners of war through the Veterans Health Administration for those physically unable to visit a VA health care facility; and outreach to the former prisoners of war community. On April 11, the Committee will discuss its recommendations and topics for future discussion. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments at 2 p.m.

Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the end of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Members of the public may also submit written statements for the Committee's review to Ms. Pam Burd, Program Analyst, Compensation Service (212), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or email at *pamela.burd@va.gov.* Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Ms. Burd at (202) 461-9149.

Dated: March 23, 2012.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Vivian Drake,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-7512 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### STATE ex rel. Phillip LEMOINE v. 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 87-KH-0304.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 23, 1987.

In re Lemoine, Phillip; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”.

Granted. The district court is ordered to act, if it has not already done so, on the post conviction petition submitted on or about April 11, 1986, if it has been filed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of The Flooring Zone, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the *"Report"*), I, Andrew Limpert, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date:  | August 8, 2008 |   | By:    | /s/ Andrew Limpert              |   |
|--------|----------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |           |   |   | Andrew Limpert                  |   |
|   |           |   |   | Interim Chief Financial Officer |   |
|        |                |        |        |                                 |        |  |