alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

CHRISTOPHER EUGENE BROOKS v. ALABAMA 

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
 

No. 15–7786 (15A755) (Decided January 21, 2016)]
 

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death 

presented to JUSTICE THOMAS and by him referred to

the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is 

denied. 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG 

joins, concurring in the denial of certiorari. 

This Court’s opinion upholding Alabama’s capital sentencing scheme was based on Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U. S. 

638 (1989) (per curiam), and Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. 

S. 447 (1984), two decisions we recently overruled in Hurst 

v. Florida, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). See Harris v. Alabama, 

513 U. S. 504 (1995). I nonetheless vote to deny certiorari

in this particular case because I believe procedural obstacles would have prevented us from granting relief. 
2 BROOKS v. ALABAMA 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

JUSTICE BREYER, dissenting from denial of application 

for stay of execution and petition for certiorari.

Christopher Eugene Brooks was sentenced to death in 

accordance with Alabama’s procedures, which allow a jury 

to render an “advisory verdict” that “is not binding on the 

court.” Ala. Code §13A–5–47(e) (2006). For the reasons 

explained in my opinions concurring in the judgment in 

Hurst v. Florida, ante, at 1, and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 

584, 613–619 (2002), and my dissenting opinion in Schriro 

v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 358–366 (2004), I dissent

from the order of the Court to deny the application for stay

of execution and the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Moreover, we have recognized that Alabama’s sentencing scheme is “much like” and “based on Florida’s sentencing scheme.” Harris v. Alabama, 513 U. S. 504, 508 

(1995). Florida’s scheme is unconstitutional. See Hurst, 

ante, at 1 (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment). The 

unfairness inherent in treating this case differently from

others which used similarly unconstitutional procedures 

only underscores the need to reconsider the validity of 

capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See 

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (BREYER, J., 

dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). I respectfully dissent.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,522-01

EX PARTE BRENT JOSEPH VOSSBERG, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W13-12238J(A) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of

cocaine with intent to deliver and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant complains, inter alia, of trial counsel’s representation at Applicant’s trial, and he

alleges that he was denied his right to appeal. There is no response from counsel.

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte

Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. 
2

As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is

the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court shall order counsel to respond to

Applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and to state whether he advised Applicant of

his appellate rights. See Jones v. State, 98 S.W.3d 700, 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The trial court

may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to Applicant’s claims

and whether Applicant was denied his right to a meaningful appeal through no fault of his own. The

trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant

and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: March 9, 2016

Do not publish
# C_2015202EN.01000101.xml

| 19.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 June 2015

(2015/C 202/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1404 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,94 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4605 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71670 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2160 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0461 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8310 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,275 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,14 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1667 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4860 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0960 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4570 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3867 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8415 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6399 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5186 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 258,22 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,8857 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0786 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5753 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 177,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2231 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,181 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 61,0685 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,348 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4778 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3278 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,6805 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1404

JPY

Japanese yen

139,94

DKK

Danish krone

7,4605

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71670

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2160

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0461

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8310

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,275

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,14

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1667

RON

Romanian leu

4,4860

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0960

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4570

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3867

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8415

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6399

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5186

KRW

South Korean won

1 258,22

ZAR

South African rand

13,8857

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0786

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5753

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 177,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2231

PHP

Philippine peso

51,181

RUB

Russian rouble

61,0685

THB

Thai baht

38,348

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4778

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3278

INR

Indian rupee

72,6805

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-3257 Directorate ID: 2015-SW-072-AD

Helicopter Model: 

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 5 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: These actions are intended to detect delaminated engine mount bushings, which can lead 

to excessive vibration, cracking, failure of the engine mount front support pins, and loss of 

helicopter control.

Costs: We estimate that labor costs average $85 per work hour. Based on this estimate, we expect 

the following costs:

• Inspecting the bushings requires 1 work hour. No parts are needed, for a total cost of 

$85 per helicopter and $425 for the U.S. fleet.

• Replacing a bushing requires 1 work hour and $373 for parts, for a total cost of $458 

per bushing. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Matt Fuller
**Exhibit 10.29**

 

**IOMEGA CORPORATION**

 

**UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT TO ACTION**

**TAKEN BY THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS**

 

The undersigned, being all of the members of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Iomega Corporation (the “Company”), have taken the following action by unanimous written consent without a meeting, such action to be effective on the date indicated below:

 

**WHEREAS,** Thomas D. Kampfer (“Executive”) and Iomega Corporation previously entered into an Executive Transition Agreement (“Transition Agreement”), with an effective date of July 26, 2005, and the parties subsequently amended the Transition Agreement, effective October 21, 2005; and as a result of the Company needing more time to recruit a CFO, the Company desires to amend its Transition Agreement with Mr. Kampfer; 

 

**NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS:**

RESOLVED, That Mr. Kampfer shall remain employed through and until March 31, 2006, and shall continue the role of Interim Chief Financial Officer which was effective November 11, 2005, on terms substantially consistent with those in the attached draft agreement; 

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Chief Executive Officer or Vice President, Human Resources of the Corporation be, and each of them acting singly hereby is, authorized and directed, in the name and on behalf of the Corporation, to execute and deliver an Agreement consistent with the attached (with no variation from the attached with regard to compensation) to Mr. Kampfer, for his execution; 

 

FURTHER RESOLVED**,**That the Chief Executive Officer, General Counsel, and/or Vice President, Human Resources are each authorized to take any and all additional acts necessary to effect the amendment and the continued employment of Mr. Kampfer on the terms set forth herein. 

 

Effective: January 25, 2006

 

 

 

Page 1 of 2

Unanimous Consent
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2578

JAMES C. MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BIG APPLE DELI, LLC, trading as Crabapples Delicatessen; 

BRUCE R. DERRICK, individual, trading as Crabapples 

Delicatessen,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. 

(1:14-cv-03042-GLR)

Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brennan C. McCarthy, BRENNAN MCCARTHY & ASSOCIATES, Annapolis, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Richard W. Evans, Amy Leete Leone, 

MCCARTHY WILSON, LLP, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James C. Martin appeals from the district court’s order 

granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil action pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. 

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in 

the district court’s decision to dismiss the complaint. See

Cardenas v. City of Chi., 646 F.3d 1001, 1005 (7th Cir. 2011) 

(stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Martin v. Big Apple Deli, 

LLC, No. 1:14-cv-03042-GLR (D. Md. Nov. 19, 2015). However, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), we modify the district court’s 

order to a dismissal without prejudice. 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 AS MODIFIED
#### In re Langley.

Constitutional Law. *Oh.*273, *Laws of*1874, *held valid.*

The petitioner was held in custody under a criminal warrant issued by a justice of the peace, founded upon a complaint which alleged that as agent of a railway company of this state he had charged the complainant for transportation as passenger on said company’s road, a higher rate of compensation than was allowed by ch. 273 of 1874; and upon *habeas corpus*he was discharged from custody, on the *378ground that said act was unconstitutional. Upon *certiorari,*this court, having heretofore affirmed the validity of the statute *(Att'y Gen. v. H. JR. Cos.,*35 Wis., 435), reverses the order of discharge.

*The Attorney*General, for tbe state.

*Spooner & Baker,*for defendants.

Cole, .1.

This is a *certiorari*issued from this court, directed to tbe county judge of St. Croix county, to bring up the proceedings had before him on the application of T. L. Langley for a writ of *habeas corpus*and to be discharged from custody.

It appears by the return made by the county judge, that the petitioner was arrested and held in custody by a constable under and by virtue of a criminal warrant issued by a justice of the peace. The criminal warrant was founded upon a complaint in writing of one Marcus A. Fulton, which stated that the petitioner, as agent of the West Wisconsin Railway Company, had unlawfully and willfully charged Fulton, for his transportation as a passenger over the said road, a greater rate of compensation than allowed by the provisions of ch. 273, Laws of 1874.

The county judge discharged the petitioner, on the ground that the warrant issued by the justice did not state any offense, or, in other words, as we are given to understand, because ch. 273 was an 'unconstitutional enactment. No other objection seems to have been taken to the regularity of the warrant or to the sufficiency of the facts stated in it.

Beyond all question the warrant shows a violation of the provisions of ch. 273 ; and as the validity of that law has been affirmed by this court in the railway injunction suits decided at the last term, it follows that the county judge erroneously discharged the petitioner from the custody of the constable.

*By the Court.*— The order of the county judge is reversed.
Exhibit 10.13

June 14, 2002

Mr. Bill McKay

Dear Bill:

     Medical Resources Management, Inc. (the "Company") and its parent, Emergent
Group  Inc.,  are  pleased  to  extend  an offer of  employment  to you as Chief
Financial Officer. The terms of the offer are as follows:

Salary:                  $125,000

First year bonus:        a. up to $20,000 based on your performance in
                         implementing and effecting a performance turnaround,
                         including necessary infrastructure changes and
                         streamlining of the Finance Department.

                         b. up to $25,000 based on corporate profits of the
                         Company, on a similar measurement scale as the Chairman
                         and CEO of the Company.

Salary draw:             You will be entitled to a draw against bonus of
                         $15,000.

Benefits:                You will be entitled to vacations, fringe benefits,
                         health benefits and other employee benefits pursuant to
                         the standard executive employee benefits of the Company
                         in effect from time to time.

Options:                 An upfront grant of 1,200,000 options in Emergent Group
                         Inc. struck at $0.01 per option, vesting in equal

                         proportions over the next 5 years.

Severance:               6 months severance at your annual salary rate upon a
                         termination subsequent to a change of control, or a
                         termination without cause, both subject to a six month
                         "acquaintance" period.

Bill, we are very enthusiastic at the prospect of you joining our team. We look
forward to your joining the team in a few weeks.


Mark Waldron
CEO
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.333-48355/48355-01) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.33-52810, 33-77168, 33-89298, 33-80439, 333-20993, 333-42241, 333-61669, 333-80027, 333-72758 and 333-96011) of Tommy Hilfiger Corporation of our report dated May 16, 2003 relating to the financial statements which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

 

New York, New York 

July 17, 2003
LEASE AMENDMENT

THIS LEASE AMENDMENT, dated 7/10/98 by and between Koger Equity, Inc., a Florida
Corporatoin  (Landlord with its principal office at 3986 Boulevard Center Drive,
Jacksonville,  Florida,  32207, and METRIS DIRECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
(Tenant) with its principal office at 4400 Baker Road, Minnetonka, MN 55343. The
Landlord  and Tenant  executed a Lease  Agreement  dated  12/11/96,  and amended
6/27/97  and  10/15/97,   for  space   designated   as  Suite  200,   comprising
approximately  25,787  square feet (as shown on Exhibit A  attached,  located at
4135 South 100th East Aveneu,  Tulsa,  Oklahoma.  The parties  hereto  desire to
alter and modify said Lease Agreement, effective January 1, 1999, as follows:

1. By changing  Lease  Expirate Date from December 31, 1998 to read December 31,
1999.

2.  By changing monthly rent from $24,712.54 to read $27,935.92, net of
electricity.



Except as specifically  amended and modified by this Lease Amendment,  all other
terms of the Lease and the Exhibits  attached  thereto  remain in full force and
effect.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Landlord and the Tenant have  executed or caused to be
executed  this  Amendment  on the  dates  shown  below  their  signatures  to be
effective as of the date set forth above.

Tenant:  METRIS DIRECT, INC.                Landlord:  KOGER EQUITY, INC.

BY:/s/ Douglas B. McCoy                     BY:/s/J. Velma Keen, II
Print Name: Douglas B. McCoy                      J. VELMA KEEN, II
Title:  Sr. Vice President, Operations            Vice President

ATTEST: _______________________________    ATTEST: _____________________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LOREN J. LARSON, Jr.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF ALASKA, Department of 

Corrections; AMY RABEAU,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35544

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00043-RRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Loren J. Larson, Jr., an Alaska state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his action under the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-35544 

§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 

2004). We reverse and remand.

Defendants do not dispute on appeal that the policy regarding nonremovable wristband identification imposed a substantial burden on Larson’s

religious exercise. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court properly 

granted summary judgment when it found that defendants established that the nonremovable wristband identification was the least restrictive means of furthering the 

compelling governmental interest in security. However, defendants submitted the 

declaration of L. Dean Marshall explaining that “some inmates, such as those 

inmates who serve on work crews or on special projects,” still wear removable 

identification tags. The declaration does not indicate whether the security concerns 

underlying the wristband identification requirement are inapplicable to the 

individuals allowed to wear removable identification tags. Thus, the record shows 

a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the non-removable wristband 

identifications are the least restrictive means. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) (stating 

that under RLUIPA, “[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the 

religious exercise” of a prisoner unless the government establishes that the burden 

furthers “a compelling governmental interest” and does so by “the least restrictive 
3 15-35544 

means”). Accordingly, we reverse summary judgment for defendants and remand 

for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FLAMINGO OPERATING, LLC,

 

 Appellant,

v.

TOOLPUSHERS SUPPLY COMPANY,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00293-CV

Appeal from the

83rd District Court

of Pecos County, Texas 

(TC# P-7578-83-CV)

O R D E R

On November 7, 2016 this Court issued an order for mediation referral. The order 

required the parties to agree upon a qualified mediator within twenty days of the order. The 

Appellant’s attorney has notified the Court that the parties were unable to agree on a mediator. 

Therefore, the Court ORDERS this appeal to continue. The appellate timetable 

suspension is lifted and the Clerk’s Record shall now be filed in this Court on or before 

December 29, 2016.

Further, I have this day filed the Reporter’s Record (1 volume) which was received on 

November 8, 2016 for the above styled and numbered cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00727-CV

IN RE Bobby Jim RAMIREZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 23, 2016

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On November 3, 2016, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that Relator is not entitled 

to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014-CI-14761, styled Kathryn Edwards and Lloyd Tate v. Bobby Jim 

Ramirez, pending in the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Karen H. Pozza presiding.