alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 7/30/13 P. v. Landers CA2/4 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION FOUR 

 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ANDRE LANDERS, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B243258 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. VA123792) 

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Marcelita V. Haynes, Judge. Affirmed. 

Maria Morrison, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

____________________________________ 
2 

On February 23, 2012, appellant was arrested on two outstanding warrants. 

During the subsequent booking search, the police recovered a small baggie 

containing cocaine base from inside appellant’s cell phone cover. Appellant was 

charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that he had suffered a prior 

“strike” conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and 

seven prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, 

subdivision (b). 

On March 8, 2012, appellant waived his constitutional rights, pled no contest 

to the charged count, and admitted the prior convictions. Pursuant to an agreement 

with the trial court, appellant was released to a drug treatment program, where he 

was to remain for one year. If he successfully completed the program, the court 

agreed it would dismiss the strike and grant probation. Appellant failed to 

complete the program. 

On August 9, 2012, the trial court imposed a 32-month prison sentence, 

consisting of the low term of 16 months, doubled for the prior strike. The court 

dismissed the other priors. The court imposed certain fees and fines, and awarded 

appellant 182 days of presentence custody credits. Appellant filed a timely notice 

of appeal. 

After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising 

no issues, but asking this court to independently review the record on appeal 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v. 

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On March 15, 2013, we advised appellant he 

had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or argument 

he wished this court to consider. No response was received. 

This court has examined the entire record in accordance with People v. 

Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442, and is satisfied appellant’s attorney has 
3 

fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no arguable issues exist. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

 MANELLA, J. 

We concur: 

EPSTEIN, P. J. 

WILLHITE, J.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-154911, 333-131796, 333-109317, 333-104968, 333-82752, 333-40276, 333-37138, 333-71151, 333-47033 and 333-16205) of PAREXEL International Corporation of our reports datedAugust 28, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of PAREXEL International Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of PAREXEL International Corporation, included in theAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2009. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

August 28, 2009
THE FLORIDA SENATE 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100 

-1 

^ 

•v." k -...•" />-/ 

SENATOR JD ALEXANDER 

17th District 

Ms. Aloha Ley, Association Director 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

S"" Floor, Room W86-310 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington D.C. 20590 

Dear Ms. Ley: 

Reference: Docket DOT-OST-2011-0119 

COMMITTEES: 

Budget, Chair 

Rules. Vice Chair 

Agriculture 

Banking and Insurance 

Budget - Subcommittee on Finance and Tax 

Budget - Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism. 

and Economic Development Appropriations 

Education Pre-K-12 

Rules - Subcommittee on Ethics and Elections 

JOINT COMMITTEE: 

Legislative Budget Commission, Vice Chair 

--• -

C T j 

\ _ J 

CD 

V 

'V 

O 

r--':'-'-.:.-'-^. 

r.-r-5-H 

-T;tt^:y -

:~i-'\~^-^^-(-l 

S i ^ 

C/.-

I support the Lakeland Linder Regional Airport request for the Small Community Air Service 

Grant. Lakeland Linder is the newest commercial air service airport in the nation and is an ultra 

low-cost aiiport perfectly positioned to afford tourists easy access to all of Central Florida, from 

Orlando and Disney World to St. Petersburg and the Gulf Coast beaches. Central Florida has 

been very hai-d hit by the 2008-2009 economic slowdown and tourists, and their economic 

impact, are critical to the Lakeland area's economic recovery. 

The application proposes funding to support Lakeland's partnership with airlines on aggressive 

marketing of new air service at the Airpoit. This Grant supported marketing fund will enable 

Lakeland to recruit and support critically needed new Central Florida air service which will bring 

more tourists and their economic impact to the region. 

Your favorable consideration of the Lakeland Grant application is greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

JEf Alexander 

Senator, District 17 

REPLY TO: 

a 201 Central Avenue West, Suite 115. City Hall Complex. Lake Wales, Florida 33853 (883) 67B-4847 

• 412 Senate Office BuiMing, 404 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100 (850) 487-5044 

Senate's Website: iviwv.flse/ia/e.goi' 

MIKE HARIDOPOLOS 

President of the Senate 

MICHAEL S. "MIKE" BENNETT 

President Pro Tempore
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,421,862
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,820,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (148,039)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,036,764
<PP&E>                                       2,932,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                (195,933)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,755,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,606,938
<BONDS>                                      4,063,447
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,222
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,528,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,755,440
<SALES>                                     24,717,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,717,144
<CGS>                                       20,836,738
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,836,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,922,569
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (148,039)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,028,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,262,917
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,100,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,162,917
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,162,917
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26



</TABLE>
#### Hayney *vs.*The State.

Upon an indictment for assault and battery, on *Grimanda C, Saddler,*evidence of an assault and battery on Grimalda C. Saddler will not warrant a conviction. The names are not the same sound.

This was an indictment against John Hayney, for an assault and battery on Grimanda C. Saddler, tried in the Yell Circuit Court, in September, 1842, before the Hon. Richard C. S. Brown, one of ■the circuit judges. Evidence of assault and battery on *Grimalda C. Saddler*Verdict of guilty; and motion for new trial for variance between indictment and evidence overruled. Exceptions, and appeal.

The case was argued here by *Blackburn,*for the appellant, and *R. W. Johnson, Ally. Gen.,*contra.

*By the Court,*

Paschal, J.

It is certainly necessary that the name ■of the person assaulted be proved as laid in the indictment; otherwise, the variance is fatal. The names *“Grimanda"*and *“Grimalda?'*have certainly not the same sound. Prosecutors are not to be held, as to names, to the correct orthography, but certainly the name in the indictment must be *idem sonans*with the true name. This is the rule universally laid down, in all works on the subject of criminal proceedings. The Circuit Court then, having, upon the evidence, found the party guilty, contrary to law,ought to have granted the new trial. ■.Case remanded, with instructions to grant a new trial.
Harold N. FAUST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-947

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathan Adam SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-3493

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 21, 2017

Filed: March 30, 2017

Virginia Bruner, Marc Krickbaum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nathan Adam Smith, Pro Se

Before RILEY, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Nathan Smith challenges the district court’s1 below-Guidelines-range sentence imposed following his guilty plea to bank fraud. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Smith’s sentence is substantively unreasonable because there is undue disparity between Smith’s sentence and the sentences imposed on his co-defendants. In a supplemental brief, Smith joins counsel in challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence based on the more favorable sentences that his co-defendants received.

Having carefully reviewed the district court’s careful articulation at sentencing of the multiple factors that guided the court in fashioning an appropriate sentence, we conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. *See United States v. Miller,*557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009). Further, we have reviewed the record as required by *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
2011Evaluation of WITec Raman SystemMarch 31st, 2011** COMPANY SANITIZED **20113 coats on 4”oxide wafer•Single-spectrum from a randomlocation on the fabric.•Excitation wavelength = 532 nm** COMPANY SANITIZED **2011Scanning Raman Spectroscopy•A 5um x 5um region of the CNT film was scanned with a step of 0.33um.•Integrated G-band from each spot was divided by the integrated D-band from the same spot to create theG/D ratio map (left figure).•Integrated RBM region from each spot was used to create the RBM map on the right.•The provide a spatial Raman map of the CNT fabric showing how the G/D ratio and the RBM region canvary from spot to spot.** COMPANY SANITIZED **2011G/D ratio map vs SEM:Not the same location5 um1 8503 5505 2506 9508 65010 3512 0513 7515 45** COMPANY SANITIZED **2011RBM map vs SEM:Not the same location206 0236 3266 5296 8327 0357 3387 5417 8448 0** COMPANY SANITIZED **20115 um** COMPANY SANITIZED **
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Donald Boggus, Jr.,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ J. DONALD BOGGUS, JR.J. Donald Boggus, Jr.President and Chief Executive OfficerMay 14, 2004
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1071 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to prohibit States from 

using a voting system which is connected to the Internet in the administration of an election for Federal office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2021 

Mr. POSEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to prohibit 

States from using a voting system which is connected 

to the Internet in the administration of an election for 

Federal office. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Election Technology 

5 Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act’’. 

2 

•HR 1071 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING CONNECTION OF VOTING SYSTEMS 

2 TO INTERNET. 

3 (a) PROHIBITION.—Section 301(a) of the Help Amer4 ica Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081(a)) is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(7) PROHIBITING CONNECTION OF SYSTEM TO

7 THE INTERNET.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No system or device 

9 upon which ballots are programmed or votes are 

10 cast or tabulated shall be connected to the 

11 Internet at any time. 

12 ‘‘(B) PROHIBITING ACCEPTANCE OF BAL13 LOTS TRANSMITTED ONLINE.—The voting sys14 tem may not directly tabulate any voted ballot 

15 which is transmitted to an election official on16 line. 

17 ‘‘(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing 

18 contained in this paragraph shall be deemed to 

19 prohibit the Commission from conducting the 

20 studies under section 242 or to conduct other 

21 similar studies under any other provision of law 

22 in a manner consistent with this paragraph.’’. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 301(d) of such Act 

24 (52 U.S.C. 21081(d)) is amended by striking the period 

25 at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, or, in the case 

3 

•HR 1071 IH

1 of the requirements of paragraph (7) of subsection (a), 

2 on and after January 1, 2022.’’. 

Æ
Shedrick A. RUSSELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0714

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
**Exhibit 10.1**

AMENDMENT OF THE FINOVA GROUP SEVERANCE PLAN AND SUMMARY PLAN 

DESCRIPTION 

WHEREAS, the Company established the FINOVA Group Severance Pay Plan and Summary Plan Description (the “Plan”) effective January 1, 1988,as amended and restated as of November 1, 2003 and May 1, 2005; and 

WHEREAS, the undersigned is empowered to amend, modify andterminate the plan, provided that no such amendment or action would result in any in any Eligible Employee receiving severance pay on terms and conditions less favorable than in effect under the Plan when the amendment, modification or terminationbecomes effective: and 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to terminate the plan effective December 31, 2007 and pay the remaining eligibleemployees the severance amounts they would have been eligible to receive on the future date of their termination of employment while they remain actively employed; 

WHEREAS, the Company has been advised by counsel that the above described actions will be permissible under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), provided theCompany causes the severance amounts to be paid following January 1, 2008; and 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan ishereby terminated effective December 31, 2007; 

RESOLVED, that the Company shall cause all remaining employees eligible to receiveseverance under the terms of the Plan to receive such amounts on January 2, 2008; and 

RESOLVED, that the proper personnel, asappropriate, be, and hereby are, authorized to execute and deliver such other certificates, powers of attorney, affidavits, agreements, assignments, documents, and instruments as are required in connection with the termination of the Plan; and

RESOLVED, that the proper personnel be, and each of them hereby is, authorized, empowered, and directed (any one of them acting alone) totake any and all such further action to amend, execute, and deliver all such further instruments and documents, for and in the name and on behalf of the Company, and to pay all such expenses as in their discretion appear to be necessary, proper, oradvisable to carry into effect the purposes and intentions of this and each of the foregoing resolutions. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executedthis written consent as of this 12th day of November, 2007. 

 
THE FINOVA GROUP, INC.By: /s/ Thomas E. MaraTitle: Chief Executive Officer
 

2
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of RecycleNet and subsidiaries, (the Company) on 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Paul Roszel President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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.





|February 22, 2005 | /s/                               
|----------------- | ----------------------------------
|                  | Paul Roszel                       
|                  | President, Chief Executive Officer
exv10w1







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.1




IGO, INC.




2009 EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN




Summary





     iGo, Inc.’s Executive Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) is a discretionary cash incentive
program designed to motivate participants to achieve the company’s financial and other performance
objectives and to reward them for their achievements when those objectives are met.



Eligibility




     Participants are approved solely at the discretion of the Compensation and Human Resources
Committee of iGo, Inc.’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”). No person is automatically
entitled to participate in the Plan in any year, and any eligible participant may choose not to
participate in the Plan in any year for any reason.



Administration




     The Committee is ultimately responsible for administering the Plan. The Committee has all
powers and discretion necessary or appropriate to review and approve the Plan and its operation,
including, but not limited to, the power to (a) determine which eligible participants shall be
granted bonus awards, (b) prescribe the terms and conditions of bonus awards, (c) interpret the
Plan, (d) adopt rules for the administration, interpretation and application of the Plan as are
consistent therewith, and (e) interpret, amend or revoke any such rules. All determinations and
decisions made by the Committee and any delegate of the Committee shall be final, conclusive, and
binding on all persons, and shall be given the maximum deference permitted by law. The Committee,
in its sole discretion and on such terms and conditions as it may provide, may delegate all or part
of its authority and powers under the Plan to one or more directors, officers and/or managers of
the Company. The Committee, in its sole discretion, may amend or terminate the Plan, or any part
thereof, at any time and for any reason.



Award Determination




     The Committee, in its sole discretion, will approve target bonuses for each participant.
Bonuses will be calculated using a formula that includes: (a) the executive’s salary, (b) the
executive’s target bonus, and (c) such other discretionary factors as the Committee determines
appropriate given the performance of the Company, and the participant’s contribution to the
Company’s overall performance, including, without limitation, the growth and creation of increased
stockholder value through the efficient use of Company assets.



Award Payouts




     Unless otherwise determined by the Committee, bonuses will be paid on an annual basis,
typically in February, and the bonus period is currently the fiscal year period.



1
IN the INTEREST OF G.G., a child.

M.G., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-2

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Luther BASSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4416

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 20683 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MARCUS COLEMAN WILLIAMS, also known as Superman , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 177

- 4

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Marcus Coleman Williams has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Williams h a s not filed a r esponse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* 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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 10, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-20683 Document: 00514548792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2018No. 17

- 20683

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to with draw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-20683 Document: 00514548792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2018