alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51317 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REBECCA JEAN STEWART, also known as Rebecca Jean Stewart, also known as Cynthia Stewart, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:94-CR-67-1

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rebecca Jean Stewart, federal prisoner # 34290-080, appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) allows the court to modify a term of imprisonment “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the sentencing commission.” § 3582(c)(2).No. 05-51317 -2- Amendment 505, effective November 1, 1994, amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to establish level 38 as the highest category of the drug quantity table. U.S.S.G., App. C, Amend. 505. Stewart was sentenced after amendment 505 took effect. Her argument is thus not one cognizable under § 3582. See United States v. Shaw , 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not err in denying Stewart’s § 3582(c) motion. Because this issue had already been decided adversely to Stewart in the denial of her prior § 3582(c) motion, this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH C IR . R. 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Stewart is warned that future challenges to her sentence under amendment 505 will invite the imposition of sanctions against her. Those sanctions could include a monetary penalty and/or limitations on her ability to challenge her sentence.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       2,861,597
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  338,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,200,307
<PP&E>                                       9,024,949
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,629,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,596,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          167,950
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,428,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,596,725
<SALES>                                      2,358,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,543,493
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,681,214
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (137,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (137,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (137,721)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (9.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (9.05)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1487 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1487

  To limit the amounts obligated or expended for fiscal year 1994 for 
 travel expenses for officers and employees of the Federal Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 1993

 Mr. Inglis of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
  referred jointly to the Committees on Government Operations, House 
                   Administration, and the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To limit the amounts obligated or expended for fiscal year 1994 for 
 travel expenses for officers and employees of the Federal Government.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, of the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 
1994 for travel expenses for officers or employees of any department, 
agency, or other entity of the executive, legislative, or judicial 
branch--
            (1) not more than 75 percent shall be obligated or expended 
        for such purposes; and
            (2) 25 percent shall be returned to the Treasury and used 
        to reduce the Federal budget deficit.

                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10950 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. ROGELIO ZAVALA-BECERRA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-126-ALL Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rogelio Zavala-Becerra raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 2, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10950

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 11 PageID 1
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 11 PageID 2
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 3 of 11 PageID 3
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 4 of 11 PageID 4
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 5 of 11 PageID 5
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 6 of 11 PageID 6
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 7 of 11 PageID 7
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 8 of 11 PageID 8
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 9 of 11 PageID 9
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 10 of 11 PageID 10
Case 3:22-cr-00398-X Document 1 Filed 10/18/22 Page 11 of 11 PageID 11
Federal Insurance Office

Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

Agenda

September 29, 2020

12:30 – 12:45 pm Introduction & FIO Update

12:45 – 2:15 pm COVID-19 Subcommittee Discussion

• Robert Hartwig, Clinical Associate Professor; Director, Risk and

Uncertainty Management Center, University of South Carolina

• Lloyd Dixon, Senior Economist, Director, RAND Kenneth R. Feinberg 

Center for Catastrophic Risk Management and Compensation

• L. Charles Landgraf, Senior Counsel, Arnold & Porter 

2:15 – 2:30 pm Break 

2:30 – 2:50 pm Subcommittee Updates from the Subcommittee on Addressing 

the Protection Gap Through Public-Private Partnerships and Other 

Mechanisms and the Subcommittee on FIO’s International Work 

2:50 – 4:20 pm Presentation and Discussion Led by the Subcommittee on the 

Availability of Insurance Products

4:20 – 4:30 pm Committee Presentation of Advice and Recommendations to FIO & 

New Business

4:30 p.m. Adjourn
#### R. W. LINDSAY, Appellant, v. KIECKHEFER CONTAINER CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 10919.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 19, 1941.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1941.

R. D. Cox, Jr., and Strickland, Ewers & Wilkins, all of Mission, for appellant.

George B. Banks, of Houston, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion. Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10450

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Rafael Ramos, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-185-21

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Rafael Ramos has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Ramos has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ramos’s response. 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 30, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10450 Document: 00516984591 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2023
No. 23-10450

2

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2. 

Case: 23-10450 Document: 00516984591 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2023
#### COTHREN v. STATE.

No. 21133.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 12, 1940.

J. Mitch Johnson, of San Saba, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury fora violation of the local option liquor laws, of such county, and upon a pleading alleging a former conviction for a similar-offense he was fined $200.

*601There are three cases against the same defendant appealed to this court, and hearing our numbers 21133, 21134 and 21135. This No. 21133 being an appeal in the county court No, 1784, No. 21134 - S.W.2d-,1 being an appeal in the county court No. 1786, and No. 21135, 141 S.W.2d 600, being an appeal in the county court No. 1788.

It appears that appellant had been convicted in county court cause No. 1744 on November 4, 1938 as shown in Book 3, page 538, of the minutes of the San Saba County Court, and that such prior conviction was the one relied upon for an enhancement of punishment in this case. It also appears that such county court cause No. 1744 had been previously introduced and relied upon in county court cause No. 1786 for the purpose of an enhancement of punishment, such county court cause No. 1786 appearing before us at the present time as our cause No. 21134. This prior conviction can not be used but once, for the purpose of an enhancement of the punishment. See Eddie Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 140 S.W.2d 859, decided May 29, 1940, and not yet published in state reports. It is evident, however, that the jury herein did use such county court cause No. 1744 for the enhancement of punishment in this cause in that they gave appellant a fine of $200, or double the lowest penalty.

On account of the error in allowing such cause No. 1744 to be used the second time for the enhancement of the penalty, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

1

 Not released by court at date of publication.
#### FEDERAL UNDERWRITERS, Appellant, v. Watson WADE, Appellee.

No. 3756.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Dec. 19, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1941.

James W. Peavy, of Austin, for appellant.

Stunner Williams, Jr., of. Lufkin, for appellee.

O’QUINN, Justice.

This is an appeal from the County Court of Nacogdoches County. After careful consideration of the record, we affirm the judgment without written opinion. Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Futch, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 1040; Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corporation v. Roy Stubblefield, Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 1115.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10393

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THOMAS CHINERE IHEME,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CR-410-G

- - - - - - - - - -

October 10, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Chinere Iheme, 64061-080, appeals from the district

court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He has filed a motion

with this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. 

Iheme argues that his indictment was fundamentally defective,

that his guilty plea was not entered in compliance with the

dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, that the district court’s
No. 96-10393

- 2 -

sentencing order was overbroad and illegal, and that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to

challenge his indictment. We have reviewed the record and

conclude that Iheme has not demonstrated that he will present a

nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Accordingly, Iheme’s motion to

proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See

Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1509 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1509

  To provide for full statutory wage adjustments for prevailing rate 
                   employees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1993

 Mr. Hochbrueckner (for himself, Mr. Moran, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Pelosi, 
   Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mrs. Unsoeld, Mr. Mineta, Mr. Miller of 
 California, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bonior, Mr. 
  Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Engle, Mr. 
DeLugo, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Nadler) introduced the following bill; which 
     was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for full statutory wage adjustments for prevailing rate 
                   employees, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prevailing Wage Rate Adjustment 
Reform Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. WAGE RATES.

    Without regard to any other provision of law limiting the amounts 
payable--
            (1) to a prevailing rate employee, as defined under section 
        5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code;
            (2) to an employee covered by section 5348 of such title; 
        or
            (3) to any other employee subject to section 616 of the 
        Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations 
        Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-393; 106 Stat. 1768);
such employees shall be paid, beginning on the effective date of each 
annual wage survey adjustment in the region after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, wages as determined and established in 
accordance with the provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 53, title 5, 
United States Code.

                                 <all>
```
exv10w24



 






Exhibit 10.24




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of April 26, 2005
by and between                     (the “Executive”), and Collegiate Funding Services, Inc., a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Company”).




WHEREAS, Executive is currently employed as                      of the Company pursuant to an employment
agreement dated                     , between Executive and the Company (the “Employment Agreement”); and




WHEREAS, in recognition of Executive’s contributions to the success and accomplishments of the
Company and to provide additional incentive for the Executive’s continued contributions and
accomplishments, the Company wishes amend the terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth
herein; and




WHEREAS, the Company and Executive agree to enter into such amendment on the terms set forth
herein.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, and
intending to be legally bound, the parties, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein,
agree as follows:




PART I. DEFINITIONS. CAPITALIZED TERMS NOT DEFINED HEREIN SHALL HAVE THE MEANING SET FORTH IN THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT.




PART II. AMENDMENTS.





	 	A.  	There is added a new Section 6(d) to the read as follows:






Upon a Change of Control (as defined in Section 12.3(a)), All Stock Options and/or
Restricted Shares held by Executive shall fully vest and, as applicable, be
exercisable immediately, and all restrictions on Restricted Shares shall lapse.




	 	B.  	Section 12.3(d) of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety.





PART III. GENERAL





	 	A.  	Except as set forth in Section 2 of this Amendment, the Employment Agreement
remains in full force and effect.
	 
	 	B.  	Each of the Company and the Executive hereby give notice of its and his
intent, respectively, to permit the automatic extension of the Term of the Employment
Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, for an additional one-year term beginning on
___, 2005.
	 
	 	C.  	This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each such
counterpart shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all such counterparts
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.





[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]




1









 








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed the day and year first
written above.




COMPANY




Collegiate Funding Services, Inc.




By: ________________________




EXECUTIVE




___________




Title:





2
#### HOLLOWAY v. STATE.

No. 20479.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1939.

G. H. Williamson, of Stephenville, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for transporting intoxicating liquor in dry territory, punishment assessed being a fine of $100.

The record before us contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. The complaint and information properly charge the offense. Under the condition of the record nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 22-0137 

J.V., 

v. 

Petitioner, 

MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT COURT, HON. RIENNE McELYEA, 

Presiding, 

Respondent. 

MAR 2 5 2022 

Bowen C,reenvvood 

Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana 

ORDER 

Petitioner J.V., via counsel, seeks a writ of supervisory control to reverse the February 

28, 2022 Order Granting Extension of Temporary Legal Custody until May 4, 2022 of the 

Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, in its Cause No. DN-20-74-B. 

Having reviewed the Petition and the challenged Order, this Court deems it appropriate 

to obtain a summary response. Therefore, in accordance with M. R. App. P. 14(7), 

IT IS ORDERED that the Eighteenth Judicial District Court and the State of Montana, 

or both, are each granted twenty days from the date of this Order, to prepare, file, and serve a 

response to the petition for writ of supervisory control. 

The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for 

Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, 

Cause No. DN-20-74-B, and the Honorable Rienne McElyea, presiding. 

DATED this 2S/Lday of March, 2022. 

For the Court, 

By 

Justice 

03/25/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0137
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1347 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1347

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

          To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National Park.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1347

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
          To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National Park.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the boundary of 
Hot Springs National Park is modified as depicted on the map entitled 
``Proposed Boundary Map'', numbered 128/80015, and dated August 5, 
1985.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
#### STEPHENS v. STATE.

No. 20794.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 31, 1940.

M. L. Walters, Jr., of Jefferson, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is rape; the punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 5 years.

 The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. *217in the absence of which his requested charges cannot be considered. The indictment is sufficient to charge the offense and procedural matters appear to be in due order.

. The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.