alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Grady LASSITER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4275.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 16, 2002.

Decided Sept. 3, 2002.

Cheryl D. Footman-Banks, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Raymond E. Patricco, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Christopher I. Jacobs, Third Year Law Student, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Grady Lassiter, Jr., appeals his conviction and 140 month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) *721(2000), and possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (2000). On appeal, Lassiter raises two issues. First, Lassiter argues the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, any reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). Lassiter’s challenge is meritless. The testimony of the Government’s witnesses established Lassiter knowingly possessed a firearm as a convicted felon, and that he knowingly possessed marijuana. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000); 21 U.S.C.A. § 844 (2000); *United States v. Beidler,*110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.1997).

Second, Lassiter argues the district court erred in admitting evidence obtained from a police search of a car in which Lassiter was a passenger. Lassiter has waived this issue by his failure to file a pre-trial suppression motion in district court. *United States v. Ricco,*52 F.3d 58, 62 (4th Cir.1995).

Accordingly, we affirm Lassiter’s convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 32.2



PARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



As adopted pursuant to



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Park Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 30, 2005 (the Report), I, Steven J. Pokrak, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Steven J. PokrakSteven J. PokrakTreasurer and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2005
----

----

|   | (1) | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 3, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               | PAPERWEIGHT DEVELOPMENT CORP. |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                               |                          |   |
| Dated:  November 8, 2010 |                          | /s/ Mark R. Richards  |
|                               | Name:                         | Mark R. Richards |
|                               | Title:                        | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |
The City of San Antonio, 

Acting s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 24, 2014

No. 04-13-00142-CV

Joe A. ZUNIGA,

Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Acting by and through its Agent City Public Service Board 

d/b/a CPS Energy,

Appellees

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-14216

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant's motion for rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Ex parte Michael H. FITZPATRICK.

No. 30545.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 11, 1959.

Walter P. Wolfram, Amarillo, for relator.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The application by telegram for writ of habeas corpus alleged that relator was unlawfully restrained of his liberty under a show cause order in contempt issued by a corporation court judge. ■

The application was set for hearing before this Court and relator was released upon bond.

No reason appears why a district judge in Potter or Randall County cannot hear the matter and grant such relief as relator may show himself entitled to.

While this Court has original jurisdiction to grant the writ of habeas corpus, we do so in cases such as this only when the relator has been unsuccessful in obtaining relief from a trial judge having similar jurisdiction.

The writ of habeas corpus will issue, returnable before Hon. E. E. Jordan, Judge of the 47th Judicial District of Texas, at the Courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, instanter. Judge Jordan or any district judge designated by him will hear the evidence and render judgment the same as though the writ had been issued by the trial judge hearing the evidence.
ctbi8k2012execcompex10-10.htm






Exhibit 10.10


 







 


AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY TRUST BANCORP, INC.


 


2006 STOCK OWNERSHIP INCENTIVE PLAN


 


DATED JANUARY 24, 2012


 


 


The Board of Directors of Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. approved the following amendment to the 2006 Stock Ownership Incentive Plan:


 


Section 8.6 of the 2006 Stock Ownership Incentive Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“8.6   Termination of Employment.  In the case of termination of employment by reason of death or Disability of a Participant prior to the expiration of the Performance Period, any then outstanding Performance Units of such Participant shall be payable in an amount equal to the amount payable under the Performance Unit at the target amount payable under the Performance Unit multiplied by a percentage equal to the percentage that would have been earned under the terms of the Performance Unit Agreement assuming that the rate at which the Performance Goals have been achieved as of the date of such termination of employment would have continued until the end of the Performance Period; provided, however, that if no target amount is specified in the Performance Unit Agreement, the amount payable shall be such amount as the Committee shall determine is reasonable.


 


In the case of termination of employment by reason of Retirement of a Participant prior to the expiration of the Performance Period, Participant’s Performance Units shall be payable on a pro rata basis at the end of the Performance Period, in an amount equal to: (a) the amount to which the Participant would have been entitled with respect to the Participant’s Performance Units if the Participant’s employment had continued to the end of the Performance Period; multiplied by (i) a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of full months the Participant is employed by the Company during the Performance Period, and the denominator of which is the number of months in the Performance Period.”
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose O. RODRIGUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-30307.

D.C. No. CR-01-00038-a-JWS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 2002 *.

Decided July 30, 2002.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose O. Rodriguez appeals his conviction and the 198-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy in relation to cocaine trafficking, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and unlawful reentry of an alien previously deported following an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) and (b)(2).

We reject as meritless Rodriguez’s contention that his appeal waiver violates public policy. It is well-settled in this circuit that plea agreements such as the one made here do not offend public policy. *United States v. Navarro-Botello,*912 F.2d 318, 321 (9th Cir.1990). Thus, Rodriguez’s waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence is valid, see *United States v. Torres,*999 F.2d 376, 378 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (upholding appeal waiver where there was no breach of plea agreement), and the appeal is

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS .. , 

oFFtc?AI(?aB3g1·~~g§L ST~TION. AU TIN. Tp~AS u~-~OSTAGE»PI~~BO~S 0~ . . 

STATEOFTEXAS .. <r::~Y~-'- ((tt,~' ~1J~~ PENALTY FOR Af:\ •\:.;;f: ... ~'~i- . · ~ == 

PRIVATE USE id~~(~~:,.,·-~~i;"·"-~ t. ~~ ~~101 $ @(0)@.~(8) 5 

j ...-i-cuit"'- · . 000 140 1623 MAY. 12. 2015. 

~o:: 

WILLIAMS, DARRELL ANTH0H~" "; 

On this day, the applicfation fo'fk ~·• / and presented to ..ttie Court. _..,.,.. ~.£, 

&x:1,J-CR-2883-E WR-56 699-06 

" rv. ' ,f Ji!:abeas Corpus has been received 

5/4/2015 

Abel Acosta, Clerk 

uf:...~ DARRELL ANTHONY WILLIAMS 

\0 S'c.'~ ~et' ~y\J~~ \~' 1o~' e P.O BOX 15 

~(__~ecW ~~·o t! ,_~\'f,otl~~~o~bRPUS Cf!Rt{)JI, TX 78403 :-- \f''-'<;>.\\ ' .• 11o\ e (\O •<'t\\":1 Ae(\C ---- C0"', . o(W 

---- co((es? 

----

ANK 

·1E8N38 78403 I II J,J,I 1. II ;il 1 II',,,,"''· i 11l• 1" ·II 1 1·1.-111 t•'IJ1ll11'' 1 •lin
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 11136 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JONATHAN ESCOBEDO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14

- CR

- 33

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In 2014, Jonathan Escobedo pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court sentenced him to 46 months in prison and three years of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) , 924(a)(2)

. After the district court revoked his supervised release in 2017, Escobedo compl eted the prison term imposed on revocation and began serving another term of supervised release. In 2019, the Government once more moved to revoke his

* 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 June 5, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-11136 Document: 00515442140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2020No. 19

- 11136

2 supervised release, alleging that Escobedo had violated the mandatory condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local law violation by committing the Texas offense of theft of property valued over $2,500 but less than $30,000 . Escobedo appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and imposition of the statutory maximu m term of 24 months of imprisonment. In arguing that the district court plainly erred by finding without a jury and by a preponderance of the evidence that Escobedo violated the conditions of his release by failing to comply with drug testing conditions, Escobedo does not address and has therefore abandoned a challenge to the sole basis for the revocation alleged in the Government’s motion to revoke and described by the district court at the revocation hearing. See Beasley v. McCotter , 798 F.2d 116,
118 (5th Cir. 1986)

. Because the violation of state law to which Escobedo pleaded guilty in state court formed an adequate basis for the discretionary revocation of Escobedo’s release under § 3583(e) , this court “ need not decide a claim of error as to other g rounds that had been advanced as a cause of revocation , ” such as the petition’s notation of a drug testing condition violation. United States v. McCormick , 54 F.3d 214, 219 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore , in light of the revocation under § 3583(e), E scobedo’s arguments regarding § 3583 (g) are irrelevant. See id. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-11136 Document: 00515442140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2020
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramey Clyde BARBIERI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4262.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 16, 2002.

Paul M. Warner, U.S. Attorney, Elizabethanne C. Stevens, Office of the United States Attorney, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark R. Moffat, Ann Marie Girot, Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SEYMOUR, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Ramey Clyde Barbieri was indicted by a grand jury on one count of transportation of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(l) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Prior to trial, he filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that several provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 were unconstitutional. Specifically, he contended that definitional language in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B) and (D) prohibiting material which “appears to be” or “conveys the impression” of a minor engaged in sexual activity was vague and overbroad. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. Barbieri then pled guilty to the indictment but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.

In *Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition,*— U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 1405-06, 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002), the Court ruled that the disputed definitional language in § 2256(8)(B) and (D) was overbroad and unconstitutional. As a consequence, we conclude this matter should be remanded to the district court with directions to vacate Barbieri’s conviction.

REMANDED with directions. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Helvetia Asset Recovery, /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 19, 2015

No. 04-14-00569-CV

Burton KAHN,

Appellant

v.

HELVETIA ASSET RECOVERY, INC.,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-18355

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 6528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01957]



[[Page 6528]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA RC2 High Impact Specialized 
Program Review.
    Date: May 1, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, 
MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Jing Chen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Room 1080, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-3268, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24474c414a4e4d4a436449454d480a4a4d4c0a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6858e83888c8f8881a68b878f8ac8888f8ec8818990">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 26, 2024.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-01957 Filed 1-31-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.13

TENTH AMENDMENT  TO THE  MANDALAY RESORT GROUP EMPLOYEES'  PROFIT SHARING AND INVESTMENT TRUST

This Tenth Amendment to the Mandalay Resort Group Employees' Profit Sharing and Investment Trust is made and entered into this 29 day of November, 2001,
but is effective for all purposes as of May 1, 2001 (except as otherwise provided herein), by and between Mandalay Resort Group (the "Company") and Wells Fargo Bank (the "Trustee").

W I T N E S S ET H:

WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the Mandalay Resort Group Employees' Profit Sharing and Investment
Trust which has been amended from time to time (as amended the "Trust") and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Trust, the Company is authorized and empowered to further amend the Trust; and

WHEREAS, the Company deems it advisable and in the best interests of the Participants to amend the Trust to provide for an additional
Employer.

NOW, THEREFORE,the Trust is hereby amended to read as follows:

I.

Paragraph (i) of Article I of the Trust is hereby amended to read as follows:



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Tenth Amendment has been executed as of the date first written above.

| |  |                       |  |                  
| |  | --------------------- |  | -----------------
| |  | MANDALAY RESORT GROUP
| |  | By:                   |  | GLENN SCHAEFFER  
| |  |                       |  | President        
| |  |                       |  | "COMPANY"        
| |  | WELLS FARGO BANK     
| |  | By:                   |  | DEBRA LAGESCHULTE
| |  | Its:                  |  | Vice President   
| |  |                       |  |                  
| |  | By:                   |  | NANCY VAN GELDER 
| |  | Its:                  |  | Vice President   
| |  |                       |  | "TRUSTEE"        

2

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                       118
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,001
<PP&E>                                           3,144
<DEPRECIATION>                                     900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,195
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,920
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,047
<SALES>                                         18,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,147
<CGS>                                           16,127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 127<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,985)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,985)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
<FN>
<F1>Net of $39 interest income
</FN>


</TABLE>