alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20647 Summary Calendar

BOUCHE MICKEY; SHIRLEY BROWN Plaintiffs–Appellants
TEXAS COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, The Texas A&M University System Defendant–Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

No. 4:05-CV-3931
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiffs–appellants Bouche Mickey and Shirley Brown (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant–appellee Texas Cooperative Extension (“TCE”), a member of the Texas A&M University System, on their race discrimination claims, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging wrongful demotion and discriminatory failure to promote (Mickey’s claims), wrongful termination United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 6, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-20647

2 (Brown’s claim), and hostile work environment (both). Plaintiffs contend that they made a prima facie case ofeach oftheir claims, that the nondiscriminatory
reasons proffered by TCE for each ofthe challenged employment decisions were factually inaccurate, and that they have raised a sufficient fact question on the issue ofpretext tosurvive summaryjudgment. Plaintiffs argue that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard in concluding that they failed to raise a fact question regarding pretext, relying on Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 578 (5th Cir. 2003). However, we conclude that the district court applied the proper legal standard, as Laxton definesan employer’s “explanation [a]s false or unworthy of c

redence if it is not the real reason for the adverse employment action,” not merely if the employer may have been mistaken in its good faith belief in its proffered explanation. Id. (emphasis added). Thedistrict court’sthorough and detailed memorandum and order stating its reasons for granting TCE’s motion for summaryjudgment comprehensively addressed each and every one of Plaintiffs’ arguments. The memorandum explained that Plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie case of some of their claims, including their hostile work environment claim (which was raised in Plaintiffs’ complaint, abandoned in their summary judgment responses, but resurrected in their briefs on appeal), and failed to raise a fact issue regarding pretext on any of their claims. Because we could not improve upon the reasoning ofthe district court, we AFFIRM the judgment for the reasons stated by the district court.
#### Carmina Pando PEREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-5945.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 2003.

Before RYAN, BATCHELDER, and LAY,* Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Donald P. Lay, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

Carmina Pando Perez, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals a district court judgment denying her motion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l). Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

In 1997, a jury convicted Perez of possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Perez to seventy-one months of imprisonment. This court affirmed Perez’s judgment of conviction and sentence. *United States v. Perez.*No. 98-5196, 1999 WL 196501 (6th Cir. Mar.26, 1999) (Merritt, Kennedy, and *Gilman,*JJ.).

In her motion to vacate sentence, Perez claimed that: 1) the evidence against her was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment; 2) insufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict; 3) the district court erred in calculating the amount of marijuana attributable to her; and 4) counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial, at sentencing, and on appeal. In a comprehensive thirty page memorandum opinion, the district court thoroughly examined each of Perez’s claims and supporting allegations and denied her motion to vacate sentence as being without merit. The district court also found no grounds upon which to grant Perez a certifícate of appealability.

This court granted Perez a partial certificate of appealability with respect to the following issue: whether there was no mention of drug quantity in the indictment and the jury made no findings regarding quantity, and whether the district court assessed facts that increased the prescribed range of penalties to which Perez was exposed in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The case was held in abeyance while the court considered whether the rule announced in *Apprendi*was retroactively applicable to initial motions to vacate sentence.

While this case was being held in abeyance, a panel of this court determined that the rule of *Apprendi*is not retroactively applicable to an initial § 2255 motion like Perez’s. *Goode v. United States,*305 F.3d 378, 385 (6th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, this case is hereby returned to the active docket, and the district court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant *733to Rule 34(j)(2)(C). Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                                    EPS-CALC
 
SOUTHERN PACIFIC FUNDING CORPORATION
STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            FOR THE YEAR ENDING
                                                             DECEMBER 31, 1996
                                                            -------------------
<S>                                                         <C>
FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME PER SHARE:
Net income.................................................     $27,631,989
Interest on convertible subordinated debentures (net of
 taxes)....................................................     $   510,078
Adjusted net income........................................     $28,142,067
Average number of shares outstanding.......................      20,030,493
Net effect of dilutive stock options.......................         481,443
Total average shares.......................................      20,511,936
                                                                -----------
Fully diluted net income per share.........................     $      1.37
                                                                ===========
PRIMARY NET INCOME PER SHARE:
Net income.................................................     $28,142,067
Average number of shares outstanding.......................      19,804,331
                                                                -----------
Primary net income per share...............................     $      1.42
                                                                ===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          31,988
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,756
<PP&E>                                       1,252,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                (98,664)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,373,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,697
<BONDS>                                        800,124
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           354
<OTHER-SE>                                     456,021
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,373,463
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               661,712
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  544,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,330
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,744
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,586
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,586
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.22


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 50029 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ARTURO ZAVALETA BENITEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:14

- CR

- 6

- 2

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge : *
Arturo Zavaleta Benitez appeals his jury trial conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting for wh ich he received a sentence of forty

- eight months of imprisonment. Zavaleta Benitez argues
that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for additional compensation for expert interpreter services without conducting a hearing. He

* 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 f orth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED November 23, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-50029 Document: 00513282260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2015No. 15

- 50029

2 contends that he showed the district court that he required additional services in order to present an adequate defense at trial.
T he C riminal J ustice A ct , 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e), allows a n indigent defendant to request the appointment of an exper t or to receive other services
that are necess ary for adequate representation after demonstrating to the

court that the services are necessa ry. The burden is on the defendant to provide specific reasons why the services are required. United States v. Gadison , 8 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 1993)

. “We review the district court's refusal to appoint an investigator ‘in light of only the information available to the trial
court at th e time it acted on the motion.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).
While Zavaleta Benitez indicated in his motion that his counsel had
relied on an interpreter on numerous occasions, he did not specify the future
services that would be required for counsel to provide adequate representation and did not allege that he was unable to obtain services on a particular
occasion . Nor did Zavaleta Benitez’s counsel request a hearing before or after
the district court denied the motion. Zavaleta Benitez is arguing for the first time on appeal that he had no opportunity to obtain witnesses to present at
trial to rebut government witness Rodriguez Arroyo’s testimony , a claim that was not presented at the time that the district court made i ts ruling. See id.
Zavaleta Benitez failed to demonstrate with specificity that he required further services of an interpreter to present an adequate defense at trial. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for appoi ntment of an interpreter. See id

. Zavaleta Benitez’s conviction is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-50029 Document: 00513282260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2015
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 Accenture SCA (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28,
2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela J. Craig, Chief Financial Officer of Accenture plc, the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 25, 2011



/s/ Pamela J. CraigPamela J. CraigChief Financial Officer of Accenture plc, general partner of Accenture SCA (principal financial officer)
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1742

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Gregory Stanek, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 23, 2010

Filed: October 6, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Stanek challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to (1) conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500

grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and 5

kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2; (2) using and carrying

a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 924(c)(1)(A); and (3) forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2461
-2-

and 5872. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. Having

reviewed the district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion as required under United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc), we conclude that the

sentence is not unreasonable, see United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579, 583

(8th Cir. 2009) (presumption of reasonableness to sentence at bottom of Guidelines

range); United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir. 2007) (discussing

abuse of discretion). Further, we have reviewed the record independently under

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for

appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for

seeking rehearing and filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________
Exhibit 10.21

 

Diplomat Pharmacy Inc.

Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation Program

(Effective February 2017)

 

The following table sets forth the compensation program for non-employee directors:

 

	
Annual cash retainer:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Board
    	
 
    	
$
    	
50,000
    	
 
    
	
Additional   cash retainer:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Lead Director
    	
 
    	
$
    	
30,000
    	
 
    
	
Audit   Committee-Chair
    	
 
    	
$
    	
10,000
    	
 
    
	
Annual   grant of restricted stock (grant date fair value):
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Board
    	
 
    	
$
    	
75,000
    	
 
    
	
Additional   grant of restricted stock (grant date fair value):
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Lead Director
    	
 
    	
$
    	
75,000
    	
 
    


 

In addition, the Company reimburses expenses associated with attendance at Board meetings for all directors.

 

Restricted Stock - Board.  Each non-employee director will be paid the annual grant of restricted stock as of the earlier of (a) June 1 and (b) the date of the annual meeting of shareholders.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the initial restricted stock grant for a new non-employee director appointed other than at the annual meeting of shareholders shall be made as of the date of initial appointment, having a pro rata grant date fair value as determined by the Board or the Compensation Committee.

 

The restricted stock vests in full on the first anniversary of the grant date or earlier upon a change of control of the Company, subject to the director’s continued service to the Company through such vesting date. Except as set forth in the prior sentence, the restricted stock will be forfeited in the event of termination of service prior to the vesting date.  During the restricted period, the restricted stock entitles the participant to all of the rights of a shareholder, including the right to vote the shares and the right to receive any dividends thereon. Prior to the end of the restricted period, restricted stock generally may not be sold, assigned, pledged, or otherwise disposed of or hypothecated by participants.

 

Restricted Stock — Lead Director.  In connection with Mr. Wolin’s appointment as the initial Lead Director of the Board, he received a grant of restricted stock.  The restricted stock vests 50% on the first anniversary of the initial appointment and 50% on the second anniversary (or earlier upon a change of control of the Company), subject to Mr. Wolin’s continued service to the Company as Lead Director through such vesting dates. Except as set forth in the prior sentence, the restricted stock will be forfeited in the event of termination of service as Lead Director prior to the vesting date.  During the restricted period, the restricted stock entitles Mr. Wolin to all of the rights of a shareholder, including the right to vote the shares and the right to receive any dividends thereon. Prior to the end of the restricted period, the restricted stock generally may not be sold, assigned, pledged, or otherwise disposed of or hypothecated.
NUMBER 13-14-00143-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

VICTOR XAVIER SNELL, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 275th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Victor Xavier Snell, attempts to appeal a conviction for burglary of a 

habitation. The trial court has certified that “the defendant has waived the right of 

appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On June 26, 2014, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s 

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification.

On November 19, 2014, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s 

response does not establish: (1) that the certification currently on file with this Court is 

incorrect, or (2) that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed 

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

10th day of December, 2014.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFOMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF UNITED PAYORS &
UNITED PROVIDERS, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      16,034,184
<SECURITIES>                                10,448,564
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,108,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,160,985
<PP&E>                                       3,333,081
<DEPRECIATION>                                (550,480)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,247,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,047,928
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    35,240,556
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,247,923
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,449,329
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,616,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             17,803,799
<INCOME-TAX>                                 7,158,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,645,799
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,645,799
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>