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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10427 Summary Calendar

DELORIS HOLMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LARRY G. MASSANARI, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:98-CV-22

-------------------- October 4, 2001 Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Deloris Holman appeals the district court’s decision affirming the determination by the Commissioner of Social Security that she is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Holman argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not consider the opinion of her internist, Dr. George Marck. However, the record demonstrates that the ALJ considered Dr. Marck’s opinion and evaluated that evidence in light of the entire medical record and the vocational expert’sNo. 01-10427 -2- opinion that a person with Holman’s medical limitations could perform past relevant work. The ALJ did not err in resolving the conflict in the evidence against Holman’s claim. See Chaparro v.
Bowen , 815 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s determination regarding the credibility of Holman’s complaints of pain, and that determination is entitled to judicial deference. See Hollis v. Bowen , 837 F.2d 1378, 1384 (5th Cir. 1988). The judgment of the district court affirming the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. See Villa v. Sullivan , 895 F.2d 1019, 1024-25 (5th Cir. 1990).
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20318

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME ANTONIO RIVAS, also known as Miguel Angel Santos, also known as

Basil Ray Roquemore, also known as Michael Lee Cameron, also known as Elloy

Carrillo, Jr.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-801-1

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Jaime Antonio Rivas appeals the 57-month sentence

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after his

deportation subsequent to committing an aggravated felony. Rivas contends

that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is cruel and

unusual and grossly disproportionate to his offense in light of the age of his prior

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 4, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-20318 Document: 00511099713 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2010
No. 09-20318

2

conviction and his law-abiding behavior since his return to the United States.

As Rivas did not object to his sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, we

review it for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 389 (5th

Cir. 2007). Rivas has not established that his 57-month sentence, within the

applicable guidelines range, was disproportionately harsh. See Rummel v.

Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284-85 (1980); United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d

1129, 1134 (5th Cir. 1993).

Rivas also contends that his sentence violates the Equal Protection Clause

because his high total offense level results in the same sentence as those

imposed on individuals with higher criminal history categories and because the

sentence he received is no longer than those imposed on individuals who illegally

reenter the United States, but do not have prior aggravated felonies. Again, our

review is for plain error. See Martinez, 496 F.3d at 389. Rivas has not

established that “other persons similarly situated as is the claimant unfairly

enjoy benefits that he does not or escape burdens to which he is subjected.”

United States v. Cronn, 717 F.2d 164, 169 (5th Cir. 1983); see also CardenasAlvarez, 987 F.3d at 1134. The sentence imposed by the district court is thus

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-20318 Document: 00511099713 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2010
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15778-15779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06829]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1333-000]


Waverly Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Waverly Wind Farm LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application 
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

[[Page 15779]]

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is April 8, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1878493828eafada8afa492b4b1b1aeb3b581a7a4b3a2efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b5d5e495854757772757e486e6b6b74696f5b7d7e6978357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 19, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06829 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00795-CR

Timothy Onkst, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CR-15-405373, THE HONORABLE MIKE DENTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E

A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a 

brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he provided copies 

of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record 

and file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the 

appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant 

has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with this Court.

Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial 

court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide 
written verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was 

provided, on or before December 9, 2016. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on November 29, 2016.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland

Do Not Publish
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0248 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DILLON PATRICK PIERCE,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 18, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 14 2023

08/14/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0248
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2712 

To authorize appropriations for planning for United States participation in 

the 2025 World Expo in Osaka, Japan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 11 (legislative day, AUGUST 10), 2021 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations for planning for United States 

participation in the 2025 World Expo in Osaka, Japan. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

4 PLANNING FOR UNITED STATES PARTICIPA5 TION IN THE 2025 WORLD EXPO. 

6 Notwithstanding section 204 of the Admiral James 

7 W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authoriza8 tion Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (22 U.S.C. 2452b), 

9 there is authorized to be appropriated for planning for 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2712 IS

1 United States participation in the 2025 World Expo in 

2 Osaka, Japan, $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2022. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### CORWITH *vs.*STATE BANK.

APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT, LA FAYETTE COUNTY.

Heard March 21.]

[Decided June 4, 1860.

*Practice.*

Where a party has made a motion in the court below to set aside a sale of real estate upon an execution, which was granted, and on an appeal to the supreme court the order granting the motion was reversed, and the cause remanded without leave to the party to renew the same motion. Such motion cannot be renewed, although the renewal be based upon other grounds.

*Pierce vs. Kneeland,*9 Wis., 23, and *Hill vs. Hoover,*id., 15, considered and approved.

After the reversal of the order of the circuit court in this cause, as reported in 8 Wis., 376, and the remission to the *431circuit court, the counsel for the defendant again moved to set aside the sales upon the executions. The motion now made was placed upon other grounds than the former motion. The motion was granted by the court, and the plaintiff appealed.

*J. H. Knowlton and J.*«¿?. *Sleeper*for the appellant.

*S. Crawford*for the respondent.

*By the*Court,

Cole, J.

Within the decisions of this court in *Pierce vs. Kneeland,*9 Wis., 23; and *Hill vs. Hoover,*id., 15, we cannot see how we can affirm the order in this case. A previous motion was made in the circuit court of La Fay-ette county to set aside the sales under the execution, &c., and that motion was sustained. From the order setting aside the sales, appeals were duly taken to this court, and upon the hearing of the appeals the orders of the circuit court setting aside the sales, were reversed. But in reversing those orders no leave was granted to the respondent to renew the motion in the circuit court, which we think was necessary, in order to entitle the respondent to make another application to set aside the sales. The motion now made has in view precisely the same object and purpose as the former one, based, it is true, upon new grounds. But if a second motion can be made to set aside these sales, why may not a third and fourth, and an indefinite number of motions be made for the same object, if the court should continue to deny the motions, upon the grounds upon which they aré severally founded ? A denial by this court of the former motion to set aside the sales must, we think, be considered as a bar to the respondent’s right to make another application for the same purpose, the respondent not having obtained leave to renew that motion, on such reversal here. See the authorities cited in case of *Pierce vs. Kneeland.*Supra.

*432■It follows therefore that *the order of the*circuit court setting aside and vacating the sale of the real estate to the appellant must be reversed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                          DELTA FINANCIAL CORPORATION
     EXHIBIT 11.1.  STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED   TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                                            DECEMBER 31,        DECEMBER 31, 
                                               1998                 1998
Dollars in thousands, except EPS data)  ------------------   -------------------
<S>                                     <C>                  <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share
------------------------
   Net income                              $   4,873            $  11,328
                                           =========            =========

   Weighted average number of common
   and common equivalent shares:          15,365,063           15,382,161
   ----------------------------
   Basic earnings per share                $    0.32            $    0.74
                                           =========            =========


Diluted Earnings Per Share

   Net income                              $   4,873            $  11,328
                                           =========            =========

   Weighted average number of common
   and common equivalent shares:
   -----------------------------
   Average no.of shares
   outstanding                            15,365,063           15,382,161

      Net effect of dilutive stock 
      options based on the treasury
      method & Fidelity additional
      shares                                      --               22,719

   Total average shares:                  15,365,063           15,404,880
                                          ==========           ==========

   Diluted earnings per share              $    0.32            $    0.74
                                           =========            =========

</TABLE>
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Claude Thomas :

:

v. : No. 2236 C.D. 2015

:

Kathleen G. Kane and : No. 2416 C.D. 2015

Kevin L. Wevodau :

:

Appeal of: Kathleen G. Kane :

O R D E R

NOW, November 30, 2016, upon consideration of appellee’s

application for reargument, the application is denied.

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                     17,725
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,474
<PP&E>                                           7,193
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,222
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,567
<BONDS>                                         57,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,390
<OTHER-SE>                                    (140,621)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,380
<SALES>                                         73,547
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,547
<CGS>                                           33,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,867
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,892
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,233
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,233
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014272EN.01000201.xml

| 20.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7010 — Bolton/Tri-Marine/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 272/03)

On 9 December 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7010. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7010. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit
10.1


 


201
Spear Street, Suite 1100


San
Francisco, CA 94105


 


October
11, 2021


 


Triton
Funds LP


San
Diego, California


 


	 	Re:	Amendment
    to Common Stock Purchase Agreement and Warrant


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


This
letter amends the Common Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of February 25, 2021, between Triton Funds LP and RocketFuel Blockchain, Inc.
(the “CSPA”) and the Common Stock Purchase Warrant dated as of February 25, 2021, between Triton Funds LP and RocketFuel
Blockchain, Inc. (the “Warrant”), as follows:


 


1.
The definition of “Investment Amount” in Article I of the CSPA is amended to read as follows:


 


“Investment
Amount” shall mean the Securities in a Purchase Notice multiplied by the greater of $1.00 or eighty percent (80%) of the lowest
closing price of the common stock within fifteen Business Days prior to the Closing; not to exceed $500,000 per Purchase Notice.


 


2.
The Warrant is amended to provide that the number of Warrant Shares shall be increased from 800,000 to 1,300,000. For avoidance of doubt,
the parties acknowledge that the Warrant has previously been exercised with respect to 50,000 shares and that 1,250,000 shares remain
available for exercise under the Warrant.


 


3.
The second paragraph of the Warrant is amended to read as follows:


 


“Capitalized
terms used in this Warrant shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement unless otherwise defined in the body of this Warrant or
in Section 14 below. For purposes of this Warrant, the term “Exercise Price” shall mean with respect to any Exercise Date
the greater of (i) $1.00 per share and (ii) eighty percent (80%) of the average closing price of the Common Stock over the 90-calendar
day period preceding the Exercise Date, subject to adjustment as provided herein (including but not limited to cashless exercise, if
permitted under the terms of this Warrant), and the term “Exercise Period” shall mean the period commencing on Issuance Date
and ending on 5:00 p.m. eastern time on the five-year anniversary of such date.”


 


Except
as set forth above, all provisions of the CSPA and the Warrant remain in full force and effect.


 


Please
indicate your acceptance of the foregoing by executing a copy of this letter and returning it to us.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	RocketFuel
    Blockchain, Inc.
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Bennett J. Yankowitz
	 	Bennett
    J. Yankowitz, CFO


 


	Agreed
    to and accepted:	 
	 	 
	Triton
    Funds LP	 
	 	 
	/s/
    Ashkan Mapar	 
	Ashkan
    Mapar
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3047609-OCT-201209:07 AM