alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50508

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Aureliano Moreno-Garcia, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-2373-1

______________________________

Before Jolly, Stewart, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Aureliano Moreno-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more 

than 500 grams of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute 

more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, conspiracy to import more than 

500 grams of methamphetamine, and importation of more than 500 grams of 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 23, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50508 Document: 83-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2024
No. 23-50508

2

methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred by denying him a 

safety-valve reduction based on a finding that he did not truthfully provide all 

information to the Government. Relying on United States v. Lima-Rivero, 971 

F.3d 518, 520 (5th Cir. 2020), Moreno-Garcia contends that the district court 

clearly erred by resting its denial on the case agent’s speculative testimony, 

which was based solely on the agent’s training and experience. 

Under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(18), a two-level reduction applies if the 

defendant meets the safety-valve criteria set forth in § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5), 

including the requirement, relevant here, that prior to sentencing the 

defendant truthfully provide the Government with all known information 

about the offense and relevant conduct related to the offense. See

§ 5C1.2(a)(5). It is the defendant’s burden to ensure “that he has provided 

all the information and evidence regarding the offense to the Government.” 

United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir. 1996). This court 

reviews for clear error a district court’s decision regarding the applicability 

of the reduction. United States v. McCrimmon, 443 F.3d 454, 457 (5th Cir. 

2006). 

The conclusion that Moreno-Garcia failed to provide all information 

was not based on speculation. Rather, there was evidence, including

inconsistent and implausible statements by Moreno-Garcia concerning the 

events, that support the district court’s finding that he failed to satisfy 

§ 5C1.2(a)(5). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-50508 Document: 83-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2024
<PAGE>

                                                                EXIBIT 10.7(iii)



                                 AMENDMENT TWO
                                 -------------
                                      TO
                                      --
                             EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                             --------------------


     This AMENDMENT TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT by and between Anthem Insurance
Companies, Inc., an Indiana mutual insurance company (the "Company") and
Marjorie W. Dorr (the "Executive") hereby amends the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the
"Agreement") between the parties dated as of the 1st day of January, 1999, as
follows:

1.  Effective July 29, 2000, Section 4(a) is hereby amended by deleting two
hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($225,000) and inserting in place thereof
three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000), section 4(b) is hereby amended
by deleting sixty percent (60%) and inserting in place thereof seventy percent
(70%), and section 4(c) is hereby amended effective January 1, 2000, seventy
percent (70%) after fifty percent (50%), and

2.  Effective July 29, 2000, Section 10 is hereby amended by inserting after
employment the following" "; provided, however, if the Executive terminates this
Agreement because the Company has assigned her to a new position outside of the
greater North Haven, Connecticut area, then the provisions of Section 11 shall
govern instead of this Section unless the employment duties in the new position
are comparable to or greater than those employment duties assigned to the
Executive as of July 29, 2000.

3.  All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have duly executed this
AMENDMENT TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT effective as of the day and year first
above written.



Marjorie W. Dorr                        Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.



/s/ Marjorie W. Dorr
                                        By:  /s/ Larry C. Glasscock
-----------------------                      ---------------------------
                                        Name:   Larry C. Glasscock

                                        Title:   President and CEO
|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)               
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History:                                                
|                                                             
|Florida Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                             
|                                                             
|Florida Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 30     | 33     | 32     | 30     | 29     | 26     | 29     | 31     | 26    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 30     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
Exhibit 10.13


 





AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROMISSORY NOTES


This Amendment No. 1 to Promissory Notes (this “Amendment”)
dated this 9th day of April, 2019, by and among Hash Labs Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and The Vantage
Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation (the “Holder”).


W I T N E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, the Holder is the holder of
certain outstanding promissory notes (collectively, the “Notes”) of the Company, consisting of (i) a promissory note,
dated on or about January 14, 2019, in the original principal amount of $17,780.25, and (ii) a promissory note, issued on or about
July 15, 2016, in the original principal amount of $100,000.


WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder desire
to amend the Notes as more particularly set forth below;


WHEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree
as follows:


1.       The maturity
date of each of the Notes is hereby amended to be June 30, 2019.


2.       Except as modified
herein, the terms of the Notes shall remain in full force and effect.


3.       This Amendment
may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and shall be binding
upon all parties, their successors and assigns, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Amendment. A
signature delivered by facsimile or email shall constitute an original.


[Signature Page Follows]



    

     

    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


	HASH LABS INC.	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ J. Mark Goode	 	 
	Name:	J. Mark Goode	 	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	THE VANTAGE GROUP LTD.	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Lyle Hauser	 	 
	Name:	Lyle Hauser	 	 
	Title	Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 23

- 00786

- CR

Derek Jay GRANT

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court

, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL20922

Honorable Christopher G. Nevins , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIR ME D.

SIGNED September 18, 2024.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
| Subsidiary                               | Country of Incorporation |
|------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
| Ailuk Shipping Company Inc.              | Marshall Islands         |
| Bikini Shipping Company Inc.             | Marshall Islands         |
| Diana Containerships Inc.  (*) | Marshall Islands         |
| Gala Properties Inc.                     | Marshall Islands         |
| Jaluit Shipping Company Inc.             | Marshall Islands         |
| Kili Shipping Company Inc.               | Marshall Islands         |
| Knox Shipping Company Inc.               | Marshall Islands         |
| Lae Shipping Company Inc.                | Marshall Islands         |
| Lib Shipping Company Inc.                | Marshall Islands         |
| Majuro Shipping Company Inc.             | Marshall Islands         |
| Namu Shipping Company Inc.               | Marshall Islands         |
| Taka Shipping Company Inc.               | Marshall Islands         |
| Husky Trading, S.A.                      | Panama                   |
| Buenos Aires Compania Armadora S.A.      | Panama                   |
| Cerada International S.A.                | Panama                   |
| Changame Compania Armadora S.A.          | Panama                   |
| Chorrera Compania Armadora S.A.          | Panama                   |
| Cypres Enterprises Corp.                 | Panama                   |
| Darien Compania Armadora S.A.            | Panama                   |
| Diana Shipping Services S.A.             | Panama                   |
| Eaton Marine S.A.                        | Panama                   |
| Panama Compania Armadora S.A.            | Panama                   |
| Skyvan Shipping Company S.A.             | Panama                   |
| Texford Maritime S.A.                    | Panama                   |
| Urbina Bay Trading, S.A.                 | Panama                   |
| Vesta Commercial, S.A.                   | Panama                   |
| Marfort Navigation Company Limited       | Cyprus                   |
| Silver Chandra Shipping Company Limited  | Cyprus                   |
| Bulk Carriers (USA) LLC                  | United States (Delaware) |
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Keith Kelson, Chief Financial Officer of Securus Technologies, Inc., certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 
|   | (1) | the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 
|   | /s/KEITH KELSON             |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   | Keith Kelson                |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer*** |
|   | March 29, 2007              |
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 25423.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1951.

Frank Ginzel, Colorado City, for appellant.

' George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Murder is the offense; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

From the state’s standpoint, this is an unexplained killing, committed during the time all the parties were engaged in a drunken orgy.

No express motive for the killing appears. Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted having fired a shot under circumstances which the trial court deemed sufficient to require a charge on self-defense. He denied having purposely fired the shot at deceased.

Deceased was killed by a bullet from appellant’s pistol, which entered the head at the corner of the left eye.

It is appellant’s contention that the testimony fails to establish the corpus delicti— that is, that deceased came to his death as the criminal act or agency of the appellant.

As to this contention, it is necessary only to call attention to the fact that appellant admitted soon after the killing that he “had shot a Negro,” deceased being a Negro. This admission, together with the wounds inflicted and the facts above mentioned, amply establish the corpus delicti.

Bills of exception appear complaining' of argument of state’s counsel.

The arguments complained of violated no mandatory statute, nor was any new fact thereby injected into the case. We are unable, especially in the light of the minimum punishment assessed, to say that same were improper, harmful, or prejudicial.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANYS
FORM 10Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JULY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                        23271000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 63033000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    724000
<INVENTORY>                                   33440000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             126512000
<PP&E>                                        11706000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2648000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               166974000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        102226000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      57393000
<OTHER-SE>                                     6495000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 166974000
<SALES>                                      115642000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             115642000
<CGS>                                         69971000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 69971000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              38096000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                105000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              484000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7018000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2983000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4035000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4035000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34


</TABLE>
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Nick N. Feizy, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00230

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Collin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 004

- 80265

- 2014 ). Opinion deliver ed by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley 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 court

. We further order that the appellant, Nick N. Feizy, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 2, 2015

B Y ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)     
|View History: Annual                               
|View History: Annual                               
|View History:                                      
|                                                   
|Michigan Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                   
|                                                   
|Michigan Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3,281  | 2,894  | 2,499 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,306  | 1,947  | 1,345  | 1,418  | 1,432  | 1,006  | 1,128  | 942    | 1,457  | 1,138 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 823    | 1,092  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|No chart available.                                                           
|No chart available.                                                           
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|Virginia Shale Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023