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

No. 17

- 40295 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

EDEN FLORES, SR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:07

- CR

- 144

- 2

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eden Flores, Sr., appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his concurrent life sentences on his jury trial convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute approximately
201 kilogram s of cocaine and for possession with intent to distribute approximately 201 kilogram s of cocaine. Flores sought relief under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which modified the drug

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED March 14, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40295 Document: 00514385782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2018No. 17

- 40295

2 quantity table set out in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) and effectively lowered most drug

related bas e offense levels b y two levels.
When considering a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) , a district court must substitute the retroactive amendment “ for the corresponding guideline provisions ” while leaving “ all other guideline applic ation decisions unaffected.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 0(b)(1) , p.s.; see Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). The district court correctly determined that the revised total offense level for Flores’s drug trafficking convictions was 46. Amendment 782 consequently results in no change in Flores ’s drug trafficking sentences because, even factoring in the amendment’s reduction of the base offense level, Flores has a total offense level that corresponds to life imprisonment, i.e., to the original sentences imposed. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). F lores’s motion to decide the appeal as being unopposed by the Government is DENIED

. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-40295 Document: 00514385782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2018
#### Bobby Edward ASH, alias Bobble Ash v. STATE.

No. 28565.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 10, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., A. D. Bowie and George P. Blackburn, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated as a second offender; the punishment, 3 years.

Appellant has filed his personal affidavit stating that he no longer desires to prosecute this appeal and requests that the same be dismissed.

This request is accordingly granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6136
MARK ANTHONY DENNIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. HUNT, JR., Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-466) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 5, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Anthony Dennis, Appellant Pro Se. Mark J. Ple tzke, 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: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dennis v. Hunt , No. CA-95-466 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
August 6, 2015

Mr. William Hall

1207 Fort St #219

Boise, ID 83702

Dear Mr. Hall:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§ xx.xx of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your May 26, filed in Docket No. FAA-2015-1933, but we are unable to process 

your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 quarterly report of Waytronx, Inc. (the "Company"), on
      Form
      10-QA of the quarter ended March 31, 2008, I hereby certify solely for the
      purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Waytronx,
      Inc.





By:
            /s/Cynthia
                M. Wilson
            
            Dated
                this 19thday of May 2008Cynthia
                M. WilsonInterim
                Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-60975 and
333-106616) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-91950, 2-93578, 33-18278, 33-29014, 33-39215, 33-56420,
33-53303, 333-51073, 333-93803, 333-93805, 333-47268, and 333-102321) of Mandalay Resort Group of our report dated
January 21, 2003 relating to the financial statements of Elgin Riverboat ResortRiverboat Casino as of December 31, 2002 and for the two years then ended, which appears in
this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mandalay Resort Group for the year ended January 31, 2004.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chicago,
Illinois
July 26, 2004

---



QuickLinks
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Ingenium Capital Corp. - Exhibit 10.1






	 	 Ministry of Employment and Investment 
    	 Event Number: 3203835 
    
	 	 Energy and Minerals Division 
    	  
	 	 Mineral Titles Branch 
    	 SUB-RECORDER  
	  	  	 RECEIVED  
	  	  	 DECEMBER 22, 2003 
    
	  	  	 M.R. #2 $10.  
	  	  	 VANCOUVER, B.C. 
    




BRITISH 

COLUMBIA



Mineral Tenure Act

  Section 52 


BILL OF SALE ABSOLUTE



	 INDICATE TYPE OF TITLE:  	 Mineral  
	 	 
	 Mining Division:  	 Greenwood  




	SELLER 
      
 

      I,               John
      Kemp  

                     
       Box 866  

                     
       Grand Forks, B.C.  

                     
       V0H 1N0         250-442-2917 
      

                     
       Client Number:    113908 
    	 PURCHASER  

      
 INGENIUM CAPITAL B.C. LTD.  
 2360
      PALMERSTON AVENUE  
 WEST VANCOUVER, B.C. 
      
 V7V2W1 (604) 763-4880  
 CLIENT
      NUMBER: 146092  



For and in consideration of the sum of ONE dollar ($1.00) paid to me, do hereby sell the interest as specified below in the following mineral titles: 

	 CLAIM NAME OR LEASE TYPE 
    	 TENURE NUMBER 
    	 PERCENTAGE OF TITLE BEING
      SOLD 
	 Glove 2  	 407217  	 100% 




	 12/22/03 
    	 	 I declare that I have good title to these
      tenures and every right
	 (Date) 
    	 	  to sell the same. In witness whereof I
      have today signed my
	  	 	  legal name.  
	  	 	 
	  	 	  /s/ John Kemp  
	  	 	 (Signature of Seller)  
	  	 	 
	 (Signature of Witness) 
    	 	 *If a corporation, either the corporate
      seal or signature of a 
	  	 	 signing officer with position in
      corporation stated.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 24, 2020

No. 04-20-00102-CV

GONZALES NURSING OPERATIONS, LLC f/d/b/a Texas Nursing & Rehab of Gonzales,

Appellants

v.

Alta Mae SMITH, Rosie L. Smith, ALton Allen Jr., A.B. Allen David L. Allen, Melvin L. 

Allen, Individually on behalf of the Estate of Nannie B. Allen, Deceased,

Appellees

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-14718

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Supreme Court of Texas has issued a First Emergency Order Regarding the COVID19 State of Disaster, which permits (but does not require except to avoid risk to court staff, 

parties, attorneys, jurors, and the public) this court to modify or suspend deadlines while the state 

of disaster is in effect. As stated on this court’s website: “Other than working remotely, the 

Fourth Court of Appeals remains fully operational.” 

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to file the brief until “20 

days after the Texas Governor lifts the disaster declaration for the State of Texas.” Appellant’s 

motion does not identify any other basis for the extension. Because the supreme court’s 

emergency order does not mandate suspension of appellate deadlines and because this court 

remains fully operational, the motion is DENIED IN PART to the extent appellant seeks an 

extension based on the indeterminate end date of the state of disaster. The motion is GRANTED 

IN PART to allow appellant a twenty-day extension of time to file appellant’s brief, or until 

April 27, 2020.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
STATE OF TENNESSEE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION 

WATER SUPPLY

9th Floor, 401 Church Street 

Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1549 

APPLICATION TO TRANSFER PERMIT 

Name and Address of Facility Name and Address of Existing Owner/Operator

State County Permit Number

WELL ACTIVITY TYPE OF PERMIT LOCATION 

___ Brine Disposal ___ Individual Latitude 

___ Enhanced Recovery ___ Area 

___ Hydrocarbon Storage ___ Number of Wells 

 Longitude

Lease Name Well umber 

Name and Address of Facility Name and Address of Existing Owner/Operator

Attach to this application a written agreement between the existing and new permittee containing 

a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability between them. 

The new permittee mus5t show evidence of financial responsibility by the submission of a surety 

bond, or other adequate assurance, such as financial statements or other materials acceptable to 

the Division

Certification 

I certify under the penalty of law that I have examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all

attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that

the information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,

including the possibility of fine or imprisonment. 

Name and Official Title (please type or print) Signature Date Signed 

CN RDA 2474
* 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 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-10335

Conference Calendar

 

RIGOBERTO RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DAN JOSLIN,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CV-2202-G

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rigoberto Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 30916-077, appeals

the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He argues that his

sentence is invalid in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.

296 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 

Rodriguez’s argument is directed toward a sentencing error; such

an argument may not be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See

Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425-26 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Rodriguez’s argument that he is entitled to proceed under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 based on the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255
No. 05-10335

-2-

because relief under that section is “inadequate or ineffective”

is unavailing. See id. at 427 (holding that a claim under Booker

does not fit within the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10


Exhibit 10.1




RiT TECHNOLOGIES ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF ORDINARY SHARES




Company to Receive Gross Proceeds of $7.1M

  

Tel Aviv, Israel – June 21, 2004 – RiT Technologies (NASDAQ: RITT), the pioneer of intelligent physical layer solutions, today announced that it has signed a definitive agreement for the private placement of the Company’s ordinary shares with institutional and private investors.  The closing of the transaction is subject to certain conditions, including shareholder approval and the approval of the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the State of Israel.




Under the terms of the agreement, the Company will issue 5,081,986 of its ordinary shares at an aggregate purchase price of $7.1 million or $1.40 per ordinary share. The company will also issue to the investors warrants to purchase up to 1,270,496 ordinary shares at an exercise price of $1.75 per share. The warrants are exercisable for five years from the date of the closing. The proceeds of the private placement will be used for general corporate purposes.  The securities offered in the private placement will not be registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act"), and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration, or an applicable exemption from registration, under the Act. The Company has agreed to file a registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission covering the resale of the ordinary shares to be issued at the closing and the ordinary shares issuable pursuant to the warrants, subject to certain terms and conditions.




About RiT Technologies

RiT Technologies pioneered the development of intelligent physical layer solutions, designed to provide superior control, utilization and maintenance of networks. RiT's innovative solutions help Enterprise and Carrier customers capitalize on network investments and reduce cost of ownership.




With a global sales network spanning 60 countries, and over 2.5 million managed ports installed, RiT's key customers include many FORTUNE 500 companies such as major financial institutions, corporations and global telecommunications companies like: Deutsche Telekom, TELMEX, TELENOR, The New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), ING Barings, INVESCO, DIAGEO, Daewoo, and Reuters.



For more information, please visit our website: www.rittech.com




Safe Harbor statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: 

This release contains forward looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the impact of competitive products and pricing, product demand and market acceptance, new product development, reliance on key strategic alliances, availability of raw materials, the regulatory environment, fluctuations in operating results and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company’s filings with the Securities Exchange Commission.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1361 

To provide for restroom gender parity in Federal buildings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2011 

Mr. TOWNS (for himself, Mr. MANZULLO, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. 

CLEAVER, Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. 

RANGEL, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. WATERS, Ms. RICHARDSON, 

Mr. PAYNE, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for restroom gender parity in Federal buildings. 

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 ‘‘Restroom Gender Par5 ity in Federal Buildings Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1361 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO REVISE FEDERAL ACQUISITION 

2 REGULATION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the 

4 date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition 

5 Regulation shall be revised— 

6 (1) to direct any Federal procurement execu7 tives involved in the acquisition, construction, or 

8 major renovation (including contracting for the con9 struction or major renovation) of any facility to in10 crease infrastructure gender parity by— 

11 (A) constructing buildings in such a way 

12 that the number of toilets in women’s restrooms 

13 will equal or exceed the number of toilets (in14 cluding urinals) in men’s restrooms; or 

15 (B) if such a number is unachievable or 

16 not feasible, receive a statement by the Admin17 istrator of General Services as to why such a 

18 number of toilets is not needed; and 

19 (2) to direct Federal procurement executives in20 volved in leasing buildings to give preference to the 

21 lease of facilities that meet or exceed the female toi22 let to male toilet (including urinals) ratio of 1 to 1. 

23 (b) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 90 days after the 

24 date of promulgation of revised regulations under sub25 section (a), the Director for Federal Procurement Policy 

26 shall issue guidance to all Federal procurement executives 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1361 IH

1 providing direction and instructions to renegotiate the de2 sign of proposed facilities, renovations for existing facili3 ties, and leased facilities to incorporate improvements that 

4 are consistent with this section. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.2

 

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

VOTING AGREEMENT

 

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO VOTING AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made and entered into by and between the undersigned director of FCB Bancorp, Inc. (“Director”) and MainSource Financial Group, Inc. (“MainSource”).

 

WHEREAS, the Director and MainSource are parties to a certain Voting Agreement, dated December 19, 2016 (the “Voting Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Director and MainSource desire to amend the Voting Agreement as set forth herein.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

 

1.     Upon the execution of this Amendment, the fifth sentence of the Voting Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:

 

Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, this Voting Agreement shall be effective from the date hereof and shall terminate and be of no further force and effect upon the earliest of (a) the consummation of the Merger (as defined in the Agreement); (b) the termination of the Agreement in accordance with its terms; (c) the taking of such action whereby a majority of FCB’s Board of Directors, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 5.06 of the Agreement, withdraws its favorable recommendation of the Agreement to its shareholders; or (d) the expiration of the 25th anniversary of the execution of this Voting Agreement.

 

2.     This Amendment shall not amend, modify, or supplement the terms, conditions, or provisions of the Voting Agreement, the terms and provisions of which are incorporated herein, except as expressly provided herein and agreed upon by the parties hereto.

 

3.     This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Indiana without regard to its conflicts of laws principles.

 

4.     This Amendment may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed an original. A signature by facsimile or in electronic (i.e., “pdf” or “tif”) format shall be deemed an original signature for the purpose of this Amendment.

 

* * * * *

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment this     day of March, 2017.

 

	
 
    	
DIRECTOR OF FCB   BANCORP, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
                                       ,   Director
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL   GROUP, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Archie M.   Brown, Jr.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
President and Chief   Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1







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 Quarterly Report of Live Current Media Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Jeffs, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to s.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.






/s/ David Jeffs


David Jeffs


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


November 15, 2010