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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-11373

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

RUBEN GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CR-1-8-1-Y

November 13, 1998

Before WISDOM, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: *

Ruben Gutierrez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to posse s s with the intent to distribute

marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and three counts of money laundering. Gutierrez

was sentenced to 135 months on each count, to run concurrent. He now appeals that sentence.

Gutierrez contends that the district judge erred at sentencing in determining Gutierrez’s

offense level. We affirm.

First, Gutierrez contends that the district judge erred in applying a two point enhancement for2 U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).

3 United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995).

4 United States v. Edwards , 65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir. 1995).

5 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a)

6 United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995).

7 Record, vol. I, p. 34-38.

2 possession of a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense. 2 The district judge made

a finding of fact that the weapons found in Gutierrez’s h o me were sufficiently connected with the

conspiracy to warrant the enhancement. This court reviews that factual determination for clear error. 3

A search of Gutierrez’s home revealed three firearms, three pounds of marijuana, ledgers of

drug accounts, and electronic scales. Gutierrez and his son each testified that the marijuana belonged

to the son, and had no connection with Gutierrez’s distribution network. The district court rejected

this testimony as self-serving. “A district court has wide discretion in determining which evidence

to consider and which testimony to credit.” 4 As the marijuana and the guns were all found in

Gutierrez’s home, in close proximity to each other, there is no clear error in applying the two point

enhancement.

Gutierrez next contends that the district court erred in applying a four point increase to his

base offense level. This increase was based on the district court’s finding of fact that Gutierrez was

an “organizer or l eader” of the criminal conspiracy. 5 Again, this court reviews the district court’s

findings of fact for clear error. 6

Gutierrez’s contention is based on the premise that he was merely a “seller/broker” of

marijuana, not an organi zer o f the conspiracy. In entering a plea of guilty, Gutierrez signed a

stipulation of facts outlining his role in the conspiracy. 7 According to that stipulation, the marijuana

was supplied by Gutierrez, and distributed at the direction of Juneau and Gutierrez. Based on the

stipulated fact that Gutierrez “directed” the distribution of marijuana, the district judge was not

clearly erroneous in applying the enhancement.3

The sentence is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2451

ZHENG FANG WENG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-170-454) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: March 25, 2005 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zheng Fang Weng, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Song E. Park, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Zheng Fang Weng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Weng fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Weng cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). We also uphold the IJ’s finding that Weng failed to establish eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). Finally, we reject Weng’s claim that he was not accorded due process in that he was not provided sufficient opportunity to explain his inconsistent asylum applications, as this claim is belied by the record. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions- 3 - are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# CE2004084EN.01009601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/96

---

(2004/C 84 E/0125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3778/03

by Jürgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Protection of personal rights

Subject:

The extent to which personal rights are protected varies greatly within the EU. In some Member States the burden of proof is on the legal or natural person who makes statements which constitute an invasion of privacy, whereas in other Member States this is not the case. In certain Member States, protection of the privacy of contemporary public figures is almost entirely neglected in favour of freedom of the press, and a case on this issue is currently pending at the European Court of Human Rights.

Does the Commission consider it necessary to put forward proposals on achieving a sufficient level of protection in all Member States, and does it believe it is in a position to do so? Does it consider that legislation should be proposed laying down appropriate fines for violations of personal rights, based on Article 7 of the proposal for a regulation on non-contractual obligations?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

(30 January 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member's analysis of the divergences in the substantive civil law of the Member States regarding violations of personal rights and the protection of privacy.

For the moment the Commission has no plans to propose harmonisation of the Member States' substantive law of civil liability regarding personal rights where non-material damage predominates and the evaluation by the courts depends heavily on the local socio-economic context. Council discussions on the Commission proposal for a Rome II instrument on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations have shown that all Community initiatives which impinge on press freedom are highly sensitive on account of the close link with the Member States' concepts of public order and constitutional principles.

While the Rome II proposal does not seek to approximate the substantive law, it does seek to improve the degree of equality as between victims of a violation of personal rights since it proposes that the same law be applicable irrespective of the Member State whose courts are seized. The purpose of the initiative is thus to improve the foreseeability of legal situations of victims engaging in cross-border litigation.

---
Exhibit 10.43

INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION

2000 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN



---

2006 AMENDMENT



---

Interactive Data Corporation (the
Company) hereby amends the Interactive Data Corporation 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the Plan) as set forth below.

* * * * *

For purposes of any Award granted or made to any person in the United Kingdom under the Interactive Data Corporation 2000 Long Term
Incentive Plan (the Plan), the Plan is amended in the following respects:

1. Section 5 of Plan shall be read and construed
as follows:

Eligibility. Employees of the Company or its Parent or any Subsidiary are eligible to be granted Awards under the
Plan.

2. The Award Agreement in respect of any Award made pursuant to this Schedule shall state that such Award is granted pursuant to this
Schedule.

In all other respects the Plan as drafted will apply to Awards granted to individuals in the United Kingdom. Nothing in this schedule shall
modify the Plan with respect to Awards granted to participants in jurisdictions other than the United Kingdom.

* * * * *

3. Further Amendments. Except as hereinabove specifically amended, all provisions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect; provided, however, that the
Company hereby reserves the power from time to time to further amend the Plan.

* * * * *



1



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this
2006 Amendment to be executed in its name and on its behalf this 15thday of July, 2006.



INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATIONBy

/s/ Stuart J. ClarkStuart J. Clark, Chief Executive Officer




2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 3

- 2 3 20

_____________________________
M ARCUS L ANE H IRES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. James Scott Duncan , Judge

. August 9, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , W INOKUR , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      122
<ALLOWANCES>                                         7
<INVENTORY>                                        135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   691
<PP&E>                                             437
<DEPRECIATION>                                     175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              534
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                         228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,266
<SALES>                                            494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2
<CGS>                                              391
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     2
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (88)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        37
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (51)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      15
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (36)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.64)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


Name of Subsidiary                 Jurisdiction of Incorporation
---------------------------        -----------------------------

NEBS Business Forms Limited        (Canada)
Shirlite, Ltd.                     (United Kingdom)
Standard Forms, Ltd.               (United Kingdom)
McBee Systems, Inc.                (Colorado)
Rapidforms, Inc.                   (New Jersey)
Russell & Miller, Inc.             (Delaware)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6089** 

DONNIE D. COMBER , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of the State of Maryland; JOHN WOLFE , Respondents

– Appellees
.

Appeal fro m the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv - 01793

- WDQ )

Submitted : July 26, 2010 Decided: August 17, 2010

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismi ssed by un published per curiam opinion
. Donnie D. Comber, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURI AM: Donnie D. Comber seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006 ) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrat ing that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court d enies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have indepen dently reviewed the record and conclude that Comber has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres ented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSE D
EO 3.3(11)(2) 

• REF ID:A67304 

AFSAC: 63/S TOP SECRET . I 

24 August l S50 · .. "\' .. 

MEM<ll.ANDtD4 FOR THE MEMBERS OF APSAC: .• -!· .I • ~. 

Subjeot: 

Referenoe: 

Enclosure: 

UoBo-Br1t.18Jl. 'Q'.onterence on the Exchange ot 

Cryptographi:o'· Principles on a Reciprocal Basis-.· 

AFSAC: 63/ln 

OoOo USAF Security Bervioe ltro dated 14 : 

August 1950c 

11) At its Eighteenth Meeting h~~d on 2 August 19500 AFSAC approved the proposed agenda contained in the reter= 

enceo 

2~· The Enclosure has been received from the ·commanding Otticer~ USAF Security Service recommending that certain 

additions be made ·to the Schedule of Specifio Items listed 

ln Enclosure "B" to the reference o · 

)o AFSAC ls requested to approve the addition ot the 

items listed in the Enolosure 9 and is further requested to 

·authorize the UoSo delegation to discuss such additional 

items as may be proposed by either the British or u~s~· 

delegation which the Directorl) AFSAD deems appropriate~ and 

within the soope. ot JCS 2074/2·0 · 

4o In co~ection·with the torthooming ConterenoeP 

·Brigadier Tiltman has recently received word that the oom• 

position ot the UoXc d~legat1on would be· as follows: 

PL 86-36/50USC3605 

TOP SECRET 

... 1 ... 

AFSAC: 63/S 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-13-2014 pursuantto E .0. 135?a 

20 
--~---. - _;---.-- ---- ------~--

EO 3;3 (h) {2) 

Subjeot: 

• REF ID:A67304 

TOP SEER.ET • 

24 August 1950 

UoSo-Br1t1sh.Oonter•ce on the Exchange ot 

Crntographio Prlnc1ples on a Reciprocal. Basiso ~ - ~ ~ - - - G - - e •. - - ~ ~ - - - - -- - ~ ~ 0 - - - - - ~ 

PL 86-16/SG USC j6D5 

It · is ant·1o1pated that the party will sail from London on 

14 September 19500 · 

EARL E o · STONE , Rear Admiral 0 UnSo ·Navy 

D1reotor; Armed Force~ Seourity·Agency. 

AFSAC: 63/5 
~· ... 

- __ -.;;,....----:;;-:;-.-------···-- ·-- -· -------

• REF ID:A67304 

··TOP SECRET e 

SDS 

14 August 1950 

SUBJECT: U., So ... British Conterenoe on the kohange of 

Cryptographio Principles on a Reo~procal Basis o· 

'l'O: Direotor 11 Al'BA · 

Washington 25».DoOo 

. . 

lo AFSAC: 6J/1dated.19 July l9S09 .sam.e subjeot as 

abDVe 9 has been reviewed as-to its applicability to air· 

operationso It ls recommended that the following ad~itions 

be made: 

a,, Enclosure 8 9 s.dd:-

(1) Under 10.80 11 't?'-8"0 

. (2) "t-o Air•ground request. weathero" 

ABAD l · 

()) "lo Aircraft movem.entao" 

ASAM. 2-1 

A18A14 7 

(I+) ".ho A1r-a1~; air;..ground communicationso·" 

uSAL 5104 . . y ... g 

b., AppeJidix to_ Enclosure B9 add:.u 

Y-8 - Ciphony equipment tor VHF or UHF range (suitable tor airoratt.installation)o 

AFSAL 5104 ... Code tor. a1r ... ground 0 air ... alr 

oommunioation-n . . 

AS.AD-1- Manuall1 operated devioe tor meteor- .:,ologi~al terminal toreoast·s o · 

2o The above ·stated additions are considered· essential 

to the eft1clent operation or the UoS~AoPo in oonJunotion with 

British servloe&c · 

/s/ Travis Mo Hetherington TRAVIS M., HE'l'BERINGTON 

Ool·onel 9 .USAF 

Oommand1Dgo 

TOP SEC·RET ENCLOSURE ·
----":' 

USCD: ZJ/53 

IP pegt • SJIJ!BP! -

llBMOIWUJM J'OR THI Mm"! r. USCIB1 

lS JfaT 1953 

Subject: BRUS.A. Canterenee cm 1'Mlah SeeultJ'. 

I. (· t '\PA 

l. !be tollawing ftpre11mtatiwa han bem d.edgnated bl' ..,.. deparbmard;a and aamc1• of tb• Boal'd to 

cmprlse the U.S. J>elept1on to tile 8UJect oaaf81'tDC81 

BSA: 

STATE: 

Kr. WllHm P. Pr!.eclmn• ClaaUmD 

Hr. Robert; P. PaakU'd 

DIPJllSB: 

PBI: 

A&Ht: 

RAVI: 

illl POICB1 

CIA: 

x.. wn11. CJodel 

Mr. V. P. lelQ' 

Col.an.el Kerl B. Sbutnam 

Captain Gitte>N Graap 

Lt. Col.tmel Jdm L Anclenm 

Kr. Prank s. loll'lett 

2. Hr. Will'• P. Pl"S.ed:an vu d-tgnated u 

Chai:rman ot the Delept1m at the 8,5th Henina ot 1JSCIB. 

USCD1 2'/53 

TOP SECRET 

24 
USCIB: 23/S2 It• not cm the AgeDda tor the E:lght7-t1tth 

Meeting ot USCIB• h8l.d cm 8 ..,.. 1953• 

fl·NAL 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

Subject: BRUSA Caaterence on hccb Security~ 

GENERAL CANDB ref'erred to the eubjec1; c0nt9"11ce, schedul.ed to 

begin en 4 June 1953, an.d said that ac:t;im should be taken to appoint 

the u.s., delegation ancl ita chail'Dlall• He recaaended that Hr. William 

F. Friedman be appointed to httad the delegatiaa in Yin ot the tact tbat 

he had start.eel llith th18 pR'bl• about two fe&1'B ago and was most 

tud.liar w1tb it.. Be said he wuld lika.to haw tbe members• 'Views en 

t.bis recclllHDdati~ and wuld allSo lik• t.o ban th• designate their own 

delegation···· · meal>9N• He infOl'IMICl t,e/Board that the British Delegation would consist ot Hr. I _ Head ot the British Delegation; Hr. 

II Gt the CJpber Poliq Board; Brigadier Tilt.man. Senior Bri.timb 

Ui!iOn otn.cer; a mmber f1'0lll th• British Poreign ottic•; and a representative from the Britilh llllbaaST in Wuhington. 

MR. SHILIJO.R stated that he would like to ncalnate Mr. Madman u 

Head ot the u.s. Delegatian and have the mamben ot the Board submit 

nclld.Datiaas ot their repzwmtat:l.T88 to the torthccming contermce to. him. 

Th~ mtllllbers agreed. 

GENERAL C.AND.B said that the British had asked that we exchange 

positiaa papers witti th• in advance ot the canterence, and recca1neadad 

that the ncmaaticn• ot u.s. Npl'e8entat1YeS llhould be submitted b7 

Tuuclq to pmd.t the delegatica to begin its WDl'k aa aooa u poeaible. 

DECISION: (8 llq 1953) USCIB qreed. that Hr. Willia P. Friedman would 

be Head ot the U.S. Delegatian to t.be BRUS.A Ccmt.rmce cm Prceh Securit7. 

USCIB agnecl, further. that the maea or can1'erence del.egates fl'Ca amber 

orgazd.zatiGDlf wauld be aubld.tt~ to the delegatim cha1rman nat. later 

than Tueadq, 12 Kq 1953· 

'ftda it• to be dl'opped trcn the agaida. 

USCIB1 23/52 - 1.5 -

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY Fonn/fu1~0SC TOP SECRET CANOE
Order entered January 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00660-CR

MAGAN MARIE KRYZAK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-48257-N

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 23, 2019 second motion for extension of time to 

file her brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received on January 23, 2019 filed 

as of the date of this order.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
OUTING SLIP 1 NAME OR TITLE 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION 

2 

3 

4 

REF ID :A65_8 8 

NEYER USE FOR APPR~. DISAPPROVALS, 

CONCURRENCES, OR'Wit.AR ACTIONS 

INITIALS 

DATf: 

CIRCULATI:: 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY ACTION 

NOTE AND RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

roved for Release b NSA on 04-14-2014 ursuant to E.O. 1352 

fROM NAME OR TITLE DATE 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION -- • -t; • ;.. jo • • .,... .;_~ TELEPHONE 

DD ,~~~~o95 RC'JJl\C.1 ... Dlt. ~GCJ}o"c1rm8'l'i.l l\.11r-&w..11111l "-1''IlQ Form 12, 10 NllV 47, wb1ch 111ay be used. GPO 1151 • 0 9b564