alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 21, 2016

s0914 

# Order

Clerk September 21, 2016

152688

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152688

COA: 321570

Wayne CC: 13

- 000751

- FC

GIANDRE ROOSEVELT BURNS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 24, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 14, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 621 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-267, K2025-265.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-26381 Filed 11-13-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50080

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Genaro Alberto Nunez-Ugarte, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-338-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Genaro Alberto Nunez-Ugarte appeals the 37-month prison sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after 

deportation. He argues that his sentence was imposed under an 

unconstitutional statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He correctly concedes that his 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50080 Document: 00515936434 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
No. 21-50080

2

argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 

(1998), but raises the issue to preserve for further possible review. See United 

States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007).

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. 

Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50080 Document: 00515936434 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1
<CURRENCY>                                             U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              833654
<SECURITIES>                                        193217
<RECEIVABLES>                                        25690
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1055210
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1848686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                29612
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             12610
<OTHER-SE>                                          664067
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1848686
<SALES>                                             163743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    220531
<CGS>                                                64165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       130767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      89764
<INCOME-TAX>                                         23994
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  65770
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         65770
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.05
        


</TABLE>
## Linda A. Gravely Retires
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2937

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Antonio Watkins, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 23, 2008

Filed: October 30, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Watkins appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed upon revoking

his supervised release. After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we

affirm.

We first conclude that Watkins’s sentence is not unreasonable because it was

within the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range and it resulted from the

court’s consideration of appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United
-2-

States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews

revocation sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia,

advisory Guidelines range and § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d

824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for

unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)).

We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that

Watkins’s revocation sentence run consecutively to his state sentences. See United

States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 512 (8th Cir. 1996) (decision to impose consecutive

or concurrent sentence upon revocation of supervised release is committed to court’s

sound discretion); see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (term of imprisonment imposed upon

revocation of supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any

sentence of imprisonment defendant is serving). 

Finally, we conclude that the district court did nothing improper in declining

to recommend Watkins’s placement in a medical facility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)

(Bureau of Prisons shall designate place of prisoner’s imprisonment).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
ex_206441.htm


Exhibit 10.8


  


 


October 6, 2020


 


 


Voin Todorovic


 


 


Re:     Consent to Reduced 2020 Target Bonus Opportunity


 


Reference is made to that certain Employment, Confidentiality and Noncompete Agreement that you entered into with Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of March 7, 2016, as amended (the “Agreement”). Section 3(b) of the Agreement provides in part:


 


Should Company meet or exceed the sales, profits and other objectives established by the Compensation Committee for any fiscal year, Employee shall be eligible to receive a bonus for such fiscal year in the amount as determined by the Compensation Committee; provided however, the target bonus opportunity established for Employee in any given fiscal year will be set by the Compensation Committee at not less than fifty percent (50%) of Employee’s earned annual base pay for such fiscal year.


 


In light of the uncertain and rapidly evolving situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Compensation and Development Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has requested that you agree to a reduced target bonus opportunity of 30% of your Eligible Quarterly Earnings (as defined in the Fiscal 2020 Performance Objectives For C-Level Employees) for each fiscal quarter of 2020. Consent to this adjustment is requested for fiscal 2020 only.


 


Please sign below to acknowledge and give your consent to this change to your target bonus opportunity for 2020.


 


	 	
			Sincerely,


			 


			BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP, INC.


			 


			/s/ Eric Fencl


			 


			Eric Fencl


			Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel


			and Secretary

			



 


 


As described in this letter, I consent to the change to my target bonus opportunity for 2020.


 


 


/s/ Voin Todorovic                       


Voin Todorovic


 


Date:      October 6, 2020
Motion Granted; Appeal Reinstated, Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed

May 24, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________ 

NO. 14-10-00373-CV

_____________

HEATHER M. WHITE, Appellant

V.

BRENT S. WHITE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Washington County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CCL6034

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce signed January 27, 2010. On May 

19, 2011, the appeal was abated at the parties’ request so that a settlement agreement 

could be finalized. On May 16, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered reinstated and dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Christopher.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 21-0005

IN RE THE MOTION OF CHRISTIAN B. CORRIGAN FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

# FILED AUG 2it 2021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Mootann ORDER

Christian B. Corrigan has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana pursuant to Rule V ofthe Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Corrigan has provided the necessary documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions Administrator, Christian B. Corrigan may be sworn in to the practice oflaw in the State of Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be madeby contactingthe officeofthe Clerk ofthe Montana Suprerne Court. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. DAFED thisc-Li 'day ofAugust, 2021.

ChiefJustice

2:t 3-1-s—e--71) 08/24/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0005

# 94,I,AIL Justices

2
### You are here: EPA Home Compliance and Enforcement ECHO Search Data Search Results


# Detailed Facility Report
For Public Release - Unrestricted Dissemination Report Generated on 09/11/2012 US Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

## Gray text in this report indicates information that is not required to be reported to EPA. These data, typically regarding non-major or smaller facilities, are often incomplete. 

# Facility Permits and Identifiers Statute System Source ID Facility Name Street Address City State Zip FRS 110038671452 CHILCO LAKE LUMBER(DBA RILEY CR SANDPT) 808 N BOYER RD SANDPOINT ID 83864 CAA AFS 1601700003 CHILCO LAKE LUMBER(DBA RILEY CR SANDPT) 808 N BOYER RD SANDPOINT ID 83864 

# Facility Characteristics
Statute Source ID Universe Status Areas Permit Expiration Date Latitude/ Longitude Indian Country? SIC Codes NAICS Codes

110038671452 LRT: 48.280387 , -116.557029 No

CAA 1601700003 Major (Fed. Rep.) Permanently Closed TITLE V PERMITS , SIP , PSD NA 2421 If the CWA permit is past its expiration date, this normally means that the permitting authority has not yet issued a new permi t. In these situations, the expired permit is normally administratively extended and kept in effect until the new permit is issued. For the RCRA program, activities that contribute to an overall facility status of Active are displayed in parentheses using theacronym HPACS, where H indicates handler activities, P - permitting, A - corrective action, C - converter, and S - state-specific. Moreinformation is available in the Data Dictionary. 

# Inspection and Enforcement Summary Data Statute Source ID Insp. Last 05Yrs Date of Last Inspection Formal Enf Act Last 05 Yrs Penalties Last 05 Yrs CAA 1601700003 0 02/17/2005 0 $00 

# Compliance Monitoring History (05 years ) Statute Source ID System Inspection Type Lead Agency Date Finding - No data records returned. Entries in italics are not considered inspections in official counts. 

# Compliance Summary Data Information on the nature of alleged violationsis available on the FAQ page. 

# Enforcement & Compliance History Online (ECHO) Page 1 of 1 EPA IDEA Query Results

9/11/201 2 http://www.ep a -echo.gov/cg i

- b in/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=11003867145 2
#### Woodard, Appellant, vs. Weigand and another, Respondents.

*February 12*

March *10, 1931.*

For the appellant there were briefs by *Larrábee & Larra-bee,*and oral argument by *Alexander Wiley,*all of Chippewa Falls.

*Roy P. Wilcox*of Eau Claire, for the respondents.

*210Nelson, J.

This case, and the case of Anna Kruse v. Arthur J. Weigand and Ray Wilcox, decided herewith *(ante,*p. 195, 235 N. W. 426), were tried together. This case, therefore, is ruled by the decision in the case in which Anna Kruse was plaintiff.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed. No costs to be taxed, except clerk’s fees to be taxed against appellant.
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 50080 Summary Calendar

United States of America, Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Genaro Alberto Nunez

- Ugarte, Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CR

- 338

- 1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Genaro Alberto Nunez

- Ugarte appeals the 37

- month prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He argues that his sentence was imposed under an unconstitutional statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He correct ly concedes that his

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United St ates Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 13, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50080 Document: 00515936434 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2021No. 21

- 50080

2 argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but raises the issue to preserve for further possible review. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5th Cir. 2007). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED , the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED , and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 21-50080 Document: 00515936434 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
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 Radiant Oil & Gas, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John M. Jurasin, Principal Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:  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.   Date:   November 22, 2010By:/s/ John M. JurasinJohn M. JurasinChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
1 ... S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SEC OND DI STRI CTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 05 7- CV I N R E J OE R AND AL L B AR NE T T R E L AT OR

----- ----- -- OR I GI NAL P R OCE E DI NG

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- The c our t ha s con si der ed r el at or ’ s pet i t i on f or w ri t of m and am us , t he
r es pons e o f t he r ea l par t y i n i nt er es t , an d t he r el at or ’ s r epl y br i ef , an d i s of t he opi ni on t hat t he pet i t i on s houl d be di sm i ss ed as m oot . I n add i t i on, t he st ay of t he t r i al co ur t pr oce edi ngs i n c aus e n um ber 2006

- 503 81- 367 , s t yl ed In re P e titio n o f Ka re n C u lw e ll B a r n e t t R e q u e s tin g a D ep o s itio n o f J o e R a n da ll Bar net t , Ja m es A l

an Siepi el a, G rego r y Rich, and G ar r y Gi bbons , pe ndi ng i n t he 3 6 7 J u d i c i a l D i s tri c t C o u rt o f D e n to n C o u n ty , T e x a s , i s h e re b y l i fte d . th R el at or shal l pay al l cost s of t hi s o rigi nal pr oceedi ng, f or w hi ch l et execut i on i ssue. P E R CU R I AM P A N E L A : D A U P H IN O T , J .; C A Y C E , C .J .; a n d M C C O Y , J .2

DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 25, 2008
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 100 The People &c., Respondent, v. Anthony Parson, Jr., Appellant.

Deborah K. Jessey, for appellant. Ashley R. Lowry, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant was convicted, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree after the

- 1 -- 2 - N o. 100

hearing court denied his motion to suppress the loaded firearm that was seized from the rear floor of the car he was driving. The charge stemmed from a traffic stop resulting in the search of the car. Defendant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based upon counsel's performance in the litigation of the suppression motion. The record does not support defendant's contention.

In a plea context, where, as here, the voluntariness of the guilty plea is not in dispute, "the defendant 'must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial,'" or that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different (People v Hernandez, 22 NY3d 972, 975 [2013], quoting Hill v Lockhart, 474 US 52, 59 [1985]). On this record, it is evident that defendant's motion to suppress the gun that was recovered during defendant's encounter with the police, if granted, would have resulted in the dismissal of the indictment.

When viewed in its totality, the attorney's performance in this case throughout the proceedings, including at the suppression hearing, did not deprive defendant of "meaningful representation" (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). To find otherwise on this record necessitates engaging in the exact form of hindsight review that this Court has cautioned against in analyzing ineffective assistance of counsel claims. In determining whether a defendant received meaningful

- 2 -- 3 - N o. 100

representation, "counsel's efforts should not be second-guessed with the clarity of hindsight to determine how the defense might have been more effective" (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).
The record demonstrates that defense counsel conducted a competent cross-examination of the witnesses at the suppression hearing and provided the court with cogent legal arguments to support his motion to suppress the gun. This Court will not engage in the supposition and conjecture required to evaluate defendant's criticism of the scope of counsel's cross-examination at the suppression hearing. We have examined defendant's other criticisms of counsel's performance and conclude that they are without merit.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Garcia concur. Judge Fahey took no part.
Decided June 14, 2016

- 3 -