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UNPUBLISHED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

No. 09-6217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. MARIO LAMONT JOHNSON, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00270-H-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Lamont Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mario Lamont Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Johnson contends that he was entitled to a reduction under Amendment 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“USSG”), which lowered the base offense levels for drug offenses involving cocaine base. See USSG § 2D1.1(c) (2007 & Supp. 2008); USSG App C. Amend. 706. Because Johnson was sentenced on the basis of his status as a career offender, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion. See United States v. Sharkey , 543 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Moore , 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Thomas , 524 F.3d 889, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Johnson , No. 5:04-cr-00270-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2009). We also deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00258

- CR

EX PARTE Luis Miguel Ramirez PEREZ

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10366CR

Honorable Roland Andrade , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court denying

appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED. This court’s May 4, 2022 stay is

LIFTED.

SIGNE D February 22, 2023.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
#                                                     Ghizelle Jane E  Abarro                                            

### 

## Contact

abarroge@ornl.gov
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3669 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a criminal penalty for 

operating drones in certain locations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 1, 2015 

Mr. GARAMENDI (for himself, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. FARR, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Mr. MEEKS, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a criminal 

penalty for operating drones in certain locations, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Safety for Airports 

5 and Firefighters by Ensuring Drones Refrain from Ob6 structing Necessary Equipment Act of 2015’’ or the 

7 ‘‘SAFE DRONE Act of 2015’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3669 IH

1 SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR OPERATING DRONES IN 

2 CERTAIN LOCATIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 2 of title 18, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘§ 40A. Operating drones in certain locations 

7 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—Whoever knowingly operates a 

8 drone in a restricted area shall be fined under this title 

9 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 

10 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

11 operations conducted for purposes of firefighting or emer12 gency response by a Federal, State, or local unit of govern13 ment (including any individual conducting such operations 

14 pursuant to a contract or other agreement entered into 

15 with the unit). 

16 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

17 ‘‘(1) the term ‘drone’ means an unmanned air18 craft, as that term is defined in section 331 of the 

19 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 

20 U.S.C. 40101 note); 

21 ‘‘(2) the term ‘restricted area’ means— 

22 ‘‘(A) within a 2-mile radius of a small hub 

23 airport, medium hub airport, or large hub air24 port; 

25 ‘‘(B) within 2 miles of the outermost pe26 rimeter of an ongoing firefighting operation inmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 3669 IH

1 volving the Department of Agriculture or the 

2 Department of the Interior; or 

3 ‘‘(C) in an area that is subject to a tem4 porary flight restriction issued by the Adminis5 trator of the Federal Aviation Administration; 

6 and 

7 ‘‘(3) the terms ‘small hub airport’, ‘medium 

8 hub airport’, and ‘large hub airport’ have the mean9 ings given those terms in section 47102 of title 49.’’. 

10 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

11 at the beginning of chapter 2 of title 18, United States 

12 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

13 item: 

‘‘40A. Operating drones in certain locations.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# L_2011170EN.01002601.xml

| 30.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 170/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 170/26

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 635/2011

of 29 June 2011

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite Campo de Calatrava (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite Campo de Calatrava’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite Campo de Calatrava’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 June 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOŞ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 287, 23.10.2010, p. 16.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.5.   Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oils, etc.)

SPAIN

Aceite Campo de Calatrava (PDO)

---
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 Envision Solar International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) I, Robert Noble, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial/Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Robert Noble
Date:  May 13, 2011Robert Noble, Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer and Chairman

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal

Financial/Accounting Officer)


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Ex parte RUTHERFORD.

No. 19605.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1938.

Chas. Owen, of El Paso, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Relator was convicted in the district court of El Paso county of the offense of burglary, and, because of repetition of offenses, his1 punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for twelve years. He gave notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals and his bond pending appeal was fixed in the sum of $7,-500. He is unable to make bond in the amount mentioned. After a hearing upon a writ of habeas corpus, the district judge declined to reduce the amount of said bond and remanded relator to the custody of the sheriff. Hence this appeal.

Under the circumstances reflected by the record, we are of opinion that bail pending appeal in the sum of $5,000 is sufficient.

*470The judgment is reversed and bail granted in the sum of $5,000.

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.
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 DKR Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report'), I, Huong Tran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  May 14, 2008    /s/ Huong Tran Huong Tran Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer
# L_2012075DE.01003601.xml

| 15.3.2012 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 75/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 75/36

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 736/2011 der Kommission vom 26. Juli 2011 zur Genehmigung des Wirkstoffs Fluroxypyr gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über das Inverkehrbringen von Pflanzenschutzmitteln und zur Änderung des Anhangs der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 540/2011 der Kommission

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 195 vom 27. Juli 2011
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 195 vom 27. Juli 2011

Seite 37, Erwägungsgrund 3:

anstatt:

„Dieser Antrag wurde durch die Entscheidung 2008/656/EG der Kommission vom 28. Juli 2008 über die Zulässigkeit der Anträge auf erneute Aufnahme der Wirkstoffe Azimsulfuron, Azoxystrobin, Fluroxypyr, Imazalil, Kresoxim-Methyl, Prohexadion-Calcium und Spiroxamin in Anhang I der Richtlinie 91/414/EWG des Rates und zur Erstellung der Liste der betroffenen Antragsteller (5) für zulässig erklärt.“

muss es heißen:

„Dieser Antrag wurde durch die Entscheidung 2008/656/EG der Kommission vom 28. Juli 2008 über die Zulässigkeit der Anträge auf erneute Aufnahme der Wirkstoffe Azimsulfuron, Azoxystrobin, Fluroxypyr, Imazalil, Kresoxim-Methyl, Prohexadion und Spiroxamin in Anhang I der Richtlinie 91/414/EWG des Rates und zur Erstellung der Liste der betroffenen Antragsteller (5) für zulässig erklärt.“

Seite 37, Fußnote 6:

anstatt:

„Europäische Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit, Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance fluroxypyr. EFSA-Journal 2011;9(3):2091. [91 ff.]. doi:10.2903/ j.efsa.2011.2091. Online abrufbar unter www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal.htm“

muss es heißen:

„Europäische Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit, Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance fluroxypyr. EFSA-Journal 2011;9(3):2091. [91 S.]. doi:10.2903/ j.efsa.2011.2091. Online abrufbar unter www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal.htm“.

Seite 38, Erwägungsgrund 8:

anstatt:

„Verwendungen“

muss es heißen:

„Anwendungen“.

Seite 40, Anhang I, Eintrag zu Fluroxypyr, Spalte „Sonderbestimmungen“, Teil A:

anstatt:

„Nur Verwendungen als Herbizid dürfen zugelassen werden.“

muss es heißen:

„Nur Anwendungen als Herbizid dürfen zugelassen werden.“

Seite 41, Anhang II, Eintrag zu Fluroxypyr, Spalte „Sonderbestimmungen“, Teil A:

anstatt:

„Nur Verwendungen als Herbizid dürfen zugelassen werden.“

muss es heißen:

„Nur Anwendungen als Herbizid dürfen zugelassen werden.“

Seite 41, Anhang II, Fußnote 1:

anstatt:

„Nähere Angaben zur Identität und Spezifikation der Wirkstoffe sind im betreffenden Prüfungsbericht enthalten.“

muss es heißen:

„Nähere Angaben zur Identität und Spezifikation der Wirkstoffe sind im betreffenden Überprüfungsbericht enthalten.“

---
##### 



Exhibit 23.3
 
  Consent of W.D. Von Gonten & Company
  W.D. Von Gonten & CompanyBy:
    /s/ W.D. Von Gonten, Jr.William D. Von Gonten, Jr., P.E.President and Chief Operating Officer
#### ERWIN v. STATE.

No. 18884.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 24, 1937.

W. H. Blanton, of Gonzales, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is murder; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The indictment appears regular and properly presented. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
2014 Q4 10K EX 10.14




EXHIBIT 10.14


AMENDMENT
TO
PERRIGO COMPANY
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


WHEREAS, Perrigo Company (the “Company”) maintains the Perrigo Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2007 (the “Plan”); and


WHEREAS, it is now deemed desirable to amend the Plan to eliminate the minimum elective deferral requirement from the Plan;


NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the amending authority reserved by the Company pursuant to Section 10.2 of the Plan and delegated to the Retirement Plan Committee pursuant to Section 11.1 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
1.    Effective January 1, 2010 by deleting Section 3.1 of the Plan in its entirety and substituting the following new Section 3.1 therefor:
“3.1    Minimum Deferrals.    
(a)    Base Annual Salary, Annual Bonus and Directors Fees.  For each Plan Year beginning prior to January 1, 2010, a Participant may elect to defer, as his or her Annual Deferral Amount, Base Annual Salary, Annual Bonus and/or Directors Fees.  Such amounts must total, in the aggregate, at least $5,000.  If an election is made for less than that amount or if no election is made, the amount deferred shall be zero.
(b)    Short Plan Year.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Participant first becomes a Participant after the first day of a Plan Year, the minimum deferral shall be an amount equal to the minimum set forth above, multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of complete months remaining in the Plan Year and the denominator of which is 12.
(c)    Elimination of Minimum Deferral Amount.  Effective January 1, 2010, the $5,000 annual minimum deferral amount set forth in paragraph (a) above shall no longer apply.”
*    *    *







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 3rd day of December, 2009.    


PERRIGO COMPANY




By: Michael R. Stewart_______________ 


Its: Sr VP Global Human Resources______



- 2 -
CH01/ 25424082.2
#### FOX v. STATE.

No. 17183.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 2, 1935.

*678Lloyd. W.. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the ’State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is selling intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

Omitting the formal parts, we quote the indictment as follows: “On or about the 5th day of November, A. D. *1933,*and anterior to the presentment of this indictment, one Boh Eox in the County of Johnson and State of Texas, did then and there unlawfully sell to J. B. Malone liquor capable of producing intoxication.”

The indictment is fundamentally defective for the reasons stated in Offield v. State (Tex. Cr.. App.) *75*S.W.(2d) 882.

■ The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2812 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2812

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a waiver of the 
oath of renunciation and allegiance for naturalization of aliens having 
                         certain disabilities.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE FOR 
              NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS HAVING CERTAIN DISABILITIES.

    (a) In General.--The last sentence of section 337(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448(a)) is amended to read 
as follows: ``The Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath if 
in the opinion of the Attorney General the applicant for naturalization 
is an individual with a disability, or a child, who is unable to 
understand or communicate an understanding of the meaning of the oath. 
If the Attorney General waives the oath for such an individual, the 
individual shall be considered to have met the requirements of section 
316(a)(3) as to attachment to the Constitution and well disposition to 
the United States.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to individuals who applied for naturalization before, on, or 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the Senate July 21, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2812

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a waiver of the 
oath of renunciation and allegiance for naturalization of aliens having 
                         certain disabilities.
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT EDWARD S. MOORE, DOC #S38324 ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3128 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 2, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Debra Johnes Riva, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
***Exhibit 23.1*****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-8 of ourreport dated February 9, 2007 (June 12, 2007 as to paragraph 1 of Note 2) (which report expressesan unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the preparation of thecombined financial statements of Quicksilver Gas Services Predecessor from the separate recordsmaintained by Quicksilver Resources Inc.) relating to the combined financial statements ofQuicksilver Gas Services Predecessor and to our reports dated July 25, 2007 relating to the balancesheets of Quicksilver Gas Services LP and Quicksilver Gas Services GP LLC appearing in theProspectus, which is part of the Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333-140599)./s/Deloitte & Touche LLPFort Worth, Texas
CWCapital ASSET MANAGEMENT(logo)



Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Period of January 1,
2016 to December 31, 2016



UBS 2012-C2



In accordance with Item 1123 of Regulation
AB andwith the requirements detailed in §10.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement(the “Agreement”) forthe above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”),
CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate
with respect to the following:



| | (A) | a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the “Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (B) | that, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.                      



Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
us.



Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC



/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone

President



7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814

www.cwcapital.com
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0000074 27-FEB-2015 08:25 AM
Order entered October 11, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01140-CV

THE ROMACK COMPANY, ET AL., Appellants

V.

JP BENT TREE, LP, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-06155

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ October 10, 2019 motion to extend the time to file their

brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to November 15, 2019. We 

caution appellants that further requests for extension in this accelerated appeal will be 

disfavored.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE