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

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

April 7, 2009

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 06

‐ 2405

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

DEONDERY CHAMBERS,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of

Illinois.

No. 4:05

‐ cr

‐ 40444

‐ JLF

G. Patrick Murphy, Judge.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the statements of position submitted by the parties in this

case, which has been remanded to this court by the Supreme Court, Chambers v. United

States

, 129 S. Ct. 687 (2009). we remand this case to the district court for resentencing of the

defendant in accordance with the Supreme Court ʹ s decision and the procedures set forth in

Nelson v. United States

, 129 S. Ct. 890 (2009); Gall v. United States

, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), and

Kimbrough v. United States

, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), which allow a defendant in a resentencing

proceeding to raise a new argument based on statutes or judicial decisions that postdate his

original sentencing, provided they are not foreclosed by the decision in his appeal from his

original, vacated sentence,

So Ordered. 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-17235) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Plan; (ii) the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-17273) pertaining to the 1995 Stock
Plan; (iii) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-2910) pertaining to the
1996 Stock Incentive Plan; and (iv) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-2908) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Houghten
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated February 5, 1997, except for Note 10,
as to which the date is February 28, 1997, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Houghten Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                        /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
San Diego, California
March 25, 1997
REF- ID:A52311BSECURITY C CATION (I/anr> 

DISPOSITION FORM 

FILE NO. I SUBJECT PoJJ.ey et; oi:~·~- ~ Qil tee O&lL.~ Qf 

Cr;rpto~c:: ~0J>.111st:i..ro. to Foreie;al S-1.ti.ar.aa 

R/D 

C/S:: 

FROM F/P DATE JUL 

2 1953 

COMMENT NO. 1 

S/Af'm' .... ,. ---•C"-

l. T.l:&ero ie a'ttached a propoeed. 1.fSA regulatio.\1 an po.U.cy aD4 prrJC~.ure for 

disclosure of a;ypt'lgr.e.i;jlic: illfoJ."maticu to :fm'.'ei82 ~aticiw·:h Accanpan,ying the 

regulation. ~ Cb:U-t ~ for the r:apj,Zftnt agau.cie:-!S f'rOIA 1ilbich ai'fi.rmt.1 wi 

usvera l.llW)t be rec3ived before tbs ~t1oo am be put into e1'fect. IJhe 

eucaeasi ve Tabs Ut.t.ilcate tM order ill ·..W.cb t"Squests for approval o1: tbe proposed 

policy w11J. be in1 tlated. 

2. 'ft?Ur C0111Dea.ta are inVited. 

5 lllcls: 

TAD A .. tJ8A Re~tion lw. "!!'!!!!!!~­

~ B - x~ £or C'bail'tEJ.'!, CDSA 

TAB c ... l~ b;r .JJizrectOt:·, iBA 1 :t•or J ~c .a .. TAI D - ;;&,o for !l1Wntria ot USCIB 

'lAB E .. ~ to%' etmrnen, a-mac~ 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-15-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

o o 1 rn~M50 g a REPLACES MME FORM 96. I OCT 48. WHICH MAY BE USED. 18--54801-3 U. 8. GOVERNMENT PWllll'l'IH ornca
# CE2004084EN.01064901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/649 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/649

---

(2004/C 84 E/0730)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0651/04

by Philip Claeys (Nl) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Position of the French language in the European institutions

Subject:

According to press reports, the Commission is apparently earmarking some EUR 20 million in order to make French ‘the’ official language in the institutions. The relevant decision was apparently taken after it became clear that the vast majority of future officials from the ten new Member States had English as their second language. Still according to press reports, the aim is, apparently, to teach French to 5 000 officials by 2008. (The French Government itself is also making an effort to promote the French language in the future Member States).

Is this information correct?

While nobody would deny the desirability of promoting a knowledge of languages other than the mother tongue, primarily in the European institutions as well, it would seem that the learning of one specific language (namely French) is being promoted as a reaction to the perceived dominance of another language. Were similar measures set up in the past with the same view in mind? Which languages were then involved?

Is not the Commission giving the impression that it is trying to regulate the relationship between languages in the European Union for the benefit of one specific language and to the detriment of others? Should not the Commission be adopting an impartial stance?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

(7 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0308/04 by Mr Seppänen. (1)

1

---

(1)  See page 358.

1

---
# CE2004084EN.01030201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/302 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/302

---

(2004/C 84 E/0350)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0051/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Consequences of the letter to the Commission from six Member States following the failure of the Brussels IGC

Subject:

In view of the letter sent addressed to the Commission by six Member States (Germany, the UK, France, Holland, Sweden and Austria) following the failure of the Brussels IGC and calling for the EU's budgets for the next six years not to exceed 1 % of the Union's GDP, can the Commission state how it intends to respond to this perplexing and unfortunate request?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

(9 March 2004)

The Commission has presented its proposal for the new financial framework, covering the period 2007-2013, on 10 February 2004 (1).

1

In this Communication, more specifically on pp. 27-29, the Commission addresses in detail the legacy of existing commitments and concludes that ‘a ceiling around 1 % of GNI, would fail to meet the European Council commitments on agricultural payments, would undermine the phasing-in of cohesion policy in the 10 new Member States, and would jeopardise the existing levels in other policies, let alone to implement the new policies.’

---

(1)  COM(2004)101.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Bio-Detek, Incorporated, incorporated in Massachusetts
ZMI France, S.A.R.L., incorporated in France
ZMD Corporation, incorporated in Delaware
ZOLL International, Inc., incorporated in U.S. Virgin Islands
ZOLL Medical (U.K.) Ltd, incorporated in United Kingdom
Westech Mobile Solutions. Inc., incorporated in Vancouver, B.C., Canada
ZOLL Medical Deutchland (GmbH), incorporated in Germany
ZOLL Medical Canada, incorporated in Canada.
Pinpoint Technologies, Inc., incorporated in Delaware.
ZOLL Medical France S.A., incorporated in France
ZOLL Medical Australia Pty Limited, incorporated in Australia
ZOLL International Holding BV, incorporated in the Netherlands


                                       30
Exhibit
      10.26

    AMENDMENT
      TO EXECUTIVE

    EMPLOYMENT
      AGREEMENT

    


    WHEREAS,
      effective July 31, 2006, CAPITAL GOLD CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
      (“Employer”), and JEFFREY W. PRITCHARD, a Pennsylvania resident (“Executive”),
      entered into an Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”);
      and

    


    WHEREAS,
      on
      July
      17, 2008, based on the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the
      Company’s Board of Directors, the Board of Directors increased the salaries of
      our executive officers;

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, to effectuate the foregoing change in salary for Executive, Employer
      and Executive agree: 

    


    1. Section
      3(a) of the Agreement is amended effective August 1, 2008 and, as amended,
      reads
      as follows:

    


    (a) Base
      Salary.
      As
      compensation for the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Employer
      agrees to pay Executive a base salary at an annual rate of not less than
      $224,250, payable in installments in accordance with Employer’s standard payroll
      practices, subject to such payroll and withholding deductions as are required
      by
      law or authorized by Executive. The amount of the base salary shall be reviewed
      periodically and may be increased at the sole discretion of Employer.


    


    2. All
      other
      terms of the Agreement remain the same.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment to the Agreement
      effective July 17, 2008. 

    


    
      	
              EMPLOYER
                :

            
	 
	
              CAPITAL
                GOLD CORPORATION

            
	 	 
	 	 
	
              By:

            	
              s/Gifford
                A. Dieterle

            
	 	
              Gifford
                A. Dieterle, President

            
	 	 
	 	 
	
              EXECUTIVE:

            
	 	 
	 	 
	
              s/Jeffrey
                W. Pritchard

            
	
              Jeffrey
                W. Pritchard
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of New England Business Service, Inc:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
2-72662, 33-38925, 33-56227, 333-32719, 333-44825 and 333-44819 of New England
Business Service, Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-26499 and
333-57657 of New England Business Service, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated
July 26, 1999, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of New England
Business Service, Inc. for the year ended June 26, 1999.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
September 10, 1999
Clllllllllla'llCll 

PU 

ll!AllHIA'nGll 

IECmARY 

ACl'IDlll 

NOl'E:MD 

RETURN 

.. mME 

•NATWE 

11111111111 

~t ' [;-{ I 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-19-2014 

3526 

FROll NAME OR TITU 
REF ID:A67192 

[OP 3ECRE] e 

9 Juq 1951 

Received tram Lt. Col. Clittord P. Harm• (G-2) t1J>9Written paper conaiet1ng of tour pagee, re 8U1"V9J" ot can.promieee of NATO security. 

tor' 3E:CRE1 
.. EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 
' REF ID:A67192 Y Jh SECRET £UE~ EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 
t! REF ID:A67192 • 

C ~ ~ EO 3.3(h)(2) TOP 8 R1.. T · $M@~~ PL.s6-36/5o use 3605 
• REF ID:A67192 e 

TOP SECRET ~y~~[E E.O 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from condensed financial
statements for the period ending January 31, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000350403
<NAME> GEOFF STANFORD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,260
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,829
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     35,976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,379
<PP&E>                                         273,493
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,343
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           517
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,190
<SALES>                                        191,070
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               190,131
<CGS>                                          163,255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,611
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.99
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from condensed financial
statements for the period ended October 31, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000350403
<NAME> MARGIE LEBLANC
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,053
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,471
<PP&E>                                         264,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,889
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           516
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,721
<SALES>                                        109,172
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,940
<CGS>                                          104,517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,486)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (950)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,536)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,536)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.30)


</TABLE>
Nevada RPC 1.1 (competence); Utah RPC 1.4, equivalent to Nevada RPC

1.4 (communication); Utah RPC 1.5, equivalent to Nevada RPC 1.5 (fees); and Utah RPC 8.4, equivalent to Nevada RPC 8.4 (misconduct). No aggravating or mitigating circumstances were mentioned.

SCR 114(4) provides that this court shall impose identical reciprocal discipline unless the attorney demonstrates or this court finds that at least one of four factors is present: (1) the procedure in the other jurisdiction denied the attorney due process; (2) there was such an infirmity of proof of the misconduct in the other jurisdiction that this court cannot accept the other court's decision; (3) substantially different discipline is warranted in this state; or (4) the established misconduct does not constitute misconduct under the rules of this state. Discipline elsewhere is res judicata, as SCR 114(5) provides that "[fin all other respects, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney has engaged in misconduct conclusively establishes the misconduct for the purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in this state."

We are not persuaded that any of the exceptions apply to this case. We therefore grant the petition for reciprocal discipline. Ryan R.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

.

9r4V)19, C.J.

Hardesty

Douglas

,J. Saitta West is hereby publicly reprimanded. The State Bar shall comply with the requirements of SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons

CC: Glenn M. Machado, Bar Counsel Ryan R. West Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 047A
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1292 

CA 11-01333 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THERESA OVERHOFF, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

BAUER SERVICE, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

DUKE, HOLZMAN, PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLP, BUFFALO (ELIZABETH A. KRAENGEL

OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

BROWN & KELLY, LLP, BUFFALO (RYAN J. MILLS OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Paula L.

Feroleto, J.), entered December 21, 2010 in a personal injury action. 

The order denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict and

for a new trial. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,

155 AD2d 435; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1], [2]).

Entered: December 30, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
## No. ?D-015(H(o 5oP^ 

# XU Ttte clofCT OF CF\M\/vJAL At>i>£ Austin), te-xas O I 1-YYAJ- FILED IN courtn?nEiV£DIN

Hdben' 11 ia«~c^^2_ couprofcriminalappeals h ca/m/aml/ippg^g 

### V AbelAcosia, Clerk ^Aeosfc. Cterff *C\YAe2_coupTOF( 

## Appeal^ Fro-wv J\t fiori G>ur4 of ftgggg^

from 4W TnU Gw^ ase Nte._307!l£, 

# flkroA ft* EttB.SS.6rt OF T1K6 TO pi* A*Pe«W> MOTION FOt^ F£ti£ft^i« 

# ^ TWE ^M0£AbL£ ^DGE3 OF SAID ^^

1*1312*1 AppelUl, °Vri S*" M^ £Us "M? hi5

### fVltrhtfrt ^or 1^e^iearVntff °^ ^lS Coc/rfs rtrft^J 1^-f-Kc^ fe&pe^-f(ullY sfofcw/ 4Ke Caarf as -f^l*^ 'a


### re^se^ on 5^H-^>|(> . 77ie Ori^i^^l W^ffe caw

Ho 

## Tl\^ »6 -tta Fi<~s+ re^Oesf ^r rZ^+ension oT -Viwe -Por -&£ 4>\iM<j of A?P*U<t*ts /McrflON/ Kr ^e^<^TMc ^ previous e^4"^A5ions crf time

\\(k\J& been requested 6r c\rar\T«J \x>r "H\e -fdliAfl 

## O-f i^ppelUnV^ lAo^ion Tor ^ekzar\x\a

1

### IE. 

### Tfo«4 4W. -fads relt-ei upon To reasonably •(iypWi/i "^e t-Jfced -f°r °^ ef4ertS(ft« are as -Allocs. 

# AppeM ,T^rfYYWrW, T-OCJ ID I* mi^T, U 

# aorrewfy nJC*f"ra|'e) X"|J Itw T«*« Cfcprfmerff of



# vrfttviA) 15 d^s o-f rtR5 Cor-Fs ^s*l *F RfpelU^ M«A Tor ftel .^rtj Et4*«^ <* ^ Tft TM CAj^e £>r U <tys or OM-M CfoKte. 14,^6fc.

3UNSWORN DECLARATION BY INMATE Beingpresentlyincarceratedinthe %W$ D^. en2Glimi^l Jasha? / /•ikM^'Uwvi! .Texas declareunderPenaltyof; Perjury thattheforegoing instrumeiitistrue and correct. Signedonthis the^ dayof "YVWl , ^

Defendant

# a*i ftft^ NWfu* fir Me****- ^ "nwe ^ *'*

~T(Pc^r (t> A& ^^^7OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS OFTEXAS OFFlD?/^9^g?^RlPSSL STATION.£g!g£j3g^? 7§!1POSTAGE»P!TNEYBOWES STATE OF TEXAS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE J - np 78701 $000.26^ 0001401623MAY 05. 2016 COA No. 04-14-00555-CR PD-0150-16 5/4/2016 " : ' MARTINEZ, ROBERT Tr. Ct. No. 3J07125* On this day, the Appellant's Pro Se petition for discretionary review has been refused: JUDGE YEARY NOT PARTICIPATING^ .. -, I -~5 ^' z^V Abel Acosta, Clerk

•i-afci j--3'.:;•. i+.£ ROBERT MARTINEZ JR. LOPEZ UNIT - TDC # 1931397 1203 EL CIBOLO ROAD . EDINBURG, TX 78539 •Hili|if.»||.|,»li',iHl,'ll',1ill#l«i',MililinHH'(I)

I*rt W h) £1!

-0 CO ^ o m ^ ^

r 

# I: Si Q> , J .^ & ^ S i CP- *n> i Lm V !

C -t-5 1> O TJ *3f tv.
# CE2004084EN.01063601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/636 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/636

---

(2004/C 84 E/0715)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject:   Seasonal work

Subject:

The freedom of movement within the EU has been providing EU citizens looking for work with a great degree of mobility. Today thousands of workers emigrate in order to take advantage of job shortages in seasonal work sectors, particularly in agriculture.

Through the press and workers' associations, I frequently hear of situations in which seasonal workers have been recruited under false pretences and find themselves facing unacceptable working and living conditions, without any legal or social protection.

Given that this situation has existed for many years, is there any Community legislation to regulate work of this kind? What measures has the Commission been taking or does it intend to take to protect the rights and interests of seasonal workers?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

(7 April 2004)

Community legislation governing working conditions applies in the same way to seasonal workers as to other workers.

Depending on the precise context in which a seasonal worker is employed, he will be covered either by the provisions of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1), or by Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (2).

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

1

(2)  OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

2

---