alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Reese Marvin BAKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6768.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 15, 2002.

Decided Aug. 20, 2002.

Reese Marvin Baker, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney Gener*622al, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Reese Marvin Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Baker v. Sacchet,*No. CA-01-518-WMN (DMd. Apr. 17, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Guerra & Moore LLP, Carlos



# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

July 28, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00213

- CV

Mark A. CANTU

, Appellant

v.

GUERRA & MOORE LLP , Carlos Guerra, J. Michael Moore, and David Lumber, Appellee s

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CVQ0001154 D2 Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On June 25

, 2014, this court issued its opinion and judgment in this appeal. This court granted A ppellee s unopposed first motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing or a motion for en banc reconsideration until July 24 , 2014. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1 , 49.7, 49.8

. On July 18, 2014, Appellees filed a notice of appearance of counsel and a second unopposed motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing unti l August 4, 2014.

Appellees’ motion is GRANTED. Appellees’ motion is due on August 4, 2014.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 28th day of July, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of International Synergy Holding Company, Ltd. N/K/A Along
      Mobile Technologies, Inc.., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
      certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:


The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2003 (the
      "Form 10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
      in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      International Synergy Holding Company, Ltd. N/K/A Along Mobile Technologies,
      Inc. and will be retained by International Synergy Holding Company, Ltd. N/K/A
      Along Mobile Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.




Dated:
      April 28, 2006







/s/
      Jian Wei Li


Jian
      Wei
      Li


President
      and


Chief
      Executive Officer







/s/
      Zhen Wan


Zhen
      Wan


Chief
      Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WALTER SIGFRIDO MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-72715

Agency No. A070-922-273

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Walter Sigfrido Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. We deny the petition for review. 

FILED

DEC 11 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
In his opening brief, Martinez fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any

challenge to the BIA’s dispositive determination that his motion to reopen is

untimely and number-barred. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th

Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in a petitioner’s opening brief are deemed waived). 

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Martinez’s remaining

contentions. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

2 12-72715
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1227 

To prohibit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from offering any new products 

during the term of any conservatorship or receivership of such enterprises. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2011 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. PEARCE, and 

Mr. HENSARLING) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from offering 

any new products during the term of any conservatorship 

or receivership of such enterprises. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘GSE Risk and Activi5 ties Limitation Act of 2011’’. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1227 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON NEW PRODUCTS DURING CON2 SERVATORSHIP OR RECEIVERSHIP. 

3 Section 1321 of the Housing and Community Devel4 opment Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4541) is amended by add5 ing at the end the following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(g) PROHIBITION OF NEW PRODUCT APPROVALS

7 DURING CONSERVATORSHIP OR RECEIVERSHIP.—Not8 withstanding any other provision of this section, during 

9 the term of any conservatorship or receivership of an en10 terprise pursuant to section 1367, the Director may not 

11 newly approve any product of the enterprise for initial of12 fering during such conservatorship or receivership.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT      31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

|   | 1. | I                have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K                of                Merisel, Inc.; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based                on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement                of a                material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make                the                statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements                were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this                report; |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | [Intentionally                omitted]; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | [Intentionally                omitted]; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | [Intentionally                omitted]. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------|

|                                |                                                                                  |                              |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                |                                                                                  |
|                           |                                                                             |                         |
| Date:                April 30, 2007 |                                                                                  | /s/                Donald R. Uzzi |
|                                | Donald                R. Uzzi                                                         |
|                                | Title:                Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and                President |
**EXHIBIT      31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

|   | 1. | I                have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K                of                Merisel, Inc.; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based                on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement                of a                material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make                the                statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements                were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this                report; |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | [Intentionally                omitted]; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | [Intentionally                omitted]; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | [Intentionally                omitted]. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------|

|                                               |                                                                                 |                              |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                               |                                                                                 |
|                                          |                                                                            |                         |
| Date:                 September 29, 2006 |                                                                                 | /s/                Donald R. Uzzi |
|                                               | Donald                R. Uzzi                                                        |
|                                               | Title:                Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and                President |
Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mandalay Resort
Group (the "Company") for the annual period ended January 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Date:
July 26, 2004

| |  | /s/MICHAEL S. ENSIGNMichael S. Ensign
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Mandalay Resort Group
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                                                                                                          

---





QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6598

DOUGLAS LEE HUSKETH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE KENWORTHY, Superintendent, Lumberton

Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp,

Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-1167)

Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 22, 2004

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Lee Husketh, Appellant Pro Se. Roy Asberry Cooper, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Lee Husketh, Junior, seeks to appeal the

magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Husketh has not made the requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2259

___________

Francisco Santana, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 9, 2001

Filed: January 19, 2001

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Francisco Santana of drug conspiracy and a related charge. We

affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See United States v. OrtizMartinez, 1 F.3d 662 (8th Cir. 1993). Santana then filed a federal habeas petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 asserting several claims. The district court denied relief, but

certified two issues for appeal involving ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. To

establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Santana must show both that his attorney's

performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient

performance actually prejudiced him. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
-2-

687-88 (1994). Santana cannot make this showing. Santana first asserts his appellate

attorney should have objected to factual misrepresentations in the government's

appellate brief. The allegedly misrepresented facts were not material to any issue

decided on appeal or relied on in our opinion to support affirmance of Santana's

convictions. Thus, Santana cannot show a reasonable probability that his direct appeal

would have been successful absent the failure to object to the alleged

misrepresentations. For his other ineffective assistance claim, Santana contends his

appellate attorney should have challenged the addition of two points to his base offense

level for possession of a firearm under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) because there was no

evidence to show he possessed firearms. To have prevailed on the claim, however, the

attorney would have had to convince us the district court's factual findings were clearly

erroneous, and Santana offers no reasons why they were. Santana cannot show the

failure to challenge the § 2D1.1(b)(1) addition prejudiced him. Besides, the increase

properly applies to a defendant like Santana. Although Santana did not personally

possess weapons, his coconspirators possessed them and the possession was

reasonably foreseeable to him. See United States v. Turpin, 920 F.2d 1377, 1386 (8th

Cir. 1990). We affirm the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EX-10.02



 Exhibit 10.02 
  





 
  

	To:	Nancee Berger 


	From:	West Corporation Compensation Committee 


	Date:	March 13, 2017 

  

	Re:	Exhibit A 

 This Exhibit A is delivered pursuant to your Employment Agreement and sets forth your 2017
base salary and incentive compensation applicable to your position as President and Chief Operating Officer for West Corporation. 
  

	 	1.	Your base salary for 2017 is $660,000 effective January 1, 2017. 

  

	 	2.	Effective January 1, 2017, you will be eligible to receive an annual incentive based upon West Corporation’s publicly reported consolidated revenue (“Revenue”), weighted at 20%, and publicly reported
Adjusted Earnings per Share from Continuing Operations – Diluted (“Adjusted EPS”), weighted at 80%, in each case, as adjusted pursuant to Section 3 below and subject to the cap set forth below. All calculations will be based on
2017 fiscal year results. Your incentive will be calculated as follows based upon an annual target incentive of $910,000: 

 Component
1: Incentive payout grid based on Revenue 
  

													
	 Revenue (In Mil$)
	 	  	Total 
% of Target
Incentive Factor	 	 	% of Target
Incentive Paid
(20% Weighting)	 	 	 
	$	 2,450.0	 	  	 	200	% 	 	 	40.0	% 	 	Maximum
	$	 2,376.4	 	  	 	125	% 	 	 	25.0	% 	 	
	$	 2,339.0	 	  	 	100	% 	 	 	20.0	% 	 	Target
	$	 2,301.0	 	  	 	65	% 	 	 	13.0	% 	 	
	$	 2,100.0	 	  	 	0	% 	 	 	0.0	% 	 	Threshold

 For the incentive payout based on Revenue, the amount paid will be extrapolated as needed between revenue range points to
the nearest tenth percent. 








 



 
  

 Component 2: Incentive payout grid based on Adjusted EPS 

 

													
	 Adjusted EPS
	 	  	Total
% of Target
Incentive Factor	 	 	% of Target
Incentive Paid
(80% Weighting)	 	 	 
	$	3.10	 	  	 	200	% 	 	 	160.0	% 	 	Maximum
	$	3.02	 	  	 	125	% 	 	 	100.0	% 	 	
	$	2.91	 	  	 	100	% 	 	 	80.0	% 	 	Target
	$	2.79	 	  	 	65	% 	 	 	52.0	% 	 	
	$	2.72	 	  	 	0	% 	 	 	0.0	% 	 	Threshold

 For each $.01 of Adjusted EPS: 

From $3.02 to $3.10, additional 7.5000% in % of Target Incentive Paid. 

From $2.91 to $3.02, additional 1.8182% in % of Target Incentive Paid. 

From $2.79 to $2.91, additional 2.3333% in % of Target Incentive Paid. 

From $2.72 to $2.79, additional 7.4286% in % of Target Incentive Paid. 

The maximum total incentive which may be earned pursuant to this Section 2 is $1,820,000 in the aggregate. 

 

	 	3.	For 2017 incentive calculations, Revenue and Adjusted EPS will be adjusted up or down to reflect the average foreign exchange rates for 2016. All metrics are based on West Corporation’s and its affiliates’
consolidated operations. Financial results arising from extraordinary items, mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures completed during 2017 may be included in the incentive calculation on a case by case basis, as determined by the Compensation
Committee. Any resulting adjustment to Adjusted EPS will apply the same rounding conventions used for publicly reported Adjusted EPS. 

  

	 	4.	100% of the incentive earned will be paid annually, no later than March 15, 2018. 

  

	
	/s/ Nancee Berger
	Employee – Nancee Berger



  
 2
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 20

- 00029

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 213th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1557096D

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### B RANDON 

### P AUL 

### B RINK



### , Appellant

V



### .

T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to dismiss his appeal. Because we have not yet decided

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a),

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 20, 2020
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1991

MICHAEL J. GIRO , Petitioner ,

v. U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Railroad Retirement Board . ( 15

- AP

- 0066 )

Submitted : February 10, 2020 Decided: February 13, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judge , and SHEDD , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael J. Giro , Petitioner Pro Se. Patrick Sullivan Polk , Office of General Counsel, U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD , Chicago, Illinois, for Respondent

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael J. Giro seeks review of the Ra ilroad Retirement Board’s decision affirming
the hearings officer’s determination that March 1, 2013, is the beginning date of Giro’s disability annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 231

- 231v (201 8 )

. Our
review of the record discloses th at the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Appeal of Michael J. Giro , No. 15

- AP

- 0066 (R.R.B. Sept. 12, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Curtis Charles Reichle, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00073

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 1423783 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cou rt

. We note that the appellant, Curtis Charles Reichle, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDER ED JANUARY 30, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Order entered January 19, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01041-CV

VSDH VAQUERO VENTURE, LTD., EVAN L. SHAW

AND DOUGLAS M. HICKOK, Appellants/Cross-Appellees

V.

KEN GROSS AND BETSY GROSS, Appellees/Cross-Appellants

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-09-05232-A

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees/cross-appellants’ January 17, 2017 motion for extension of 

time to file their brief. We GRANT appellees/cross-appellants’ motion and ORDER the brief 

received on January 17, 2017 filed as of the date of this order. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE