alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel GOMEZ-REGALADO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40106 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 27, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S.- Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Miguel Gomez-Regalado, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Gomez-Regalado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gomez-Regalado has not filed a response. 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 *173issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R.' 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 3.1.1


                                  AMENDMENTS TO
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                                 XOX CORPORATION

         THE UNDERSIGNED, being an authorized officer of XOX Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify as follows:

         1. The name of the Corporation is XOX Corporation, which is the name
under which the Corporation was originally incorporated; and the date of filing
of the original Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation with the
Secretary of the State of Delaware was September 16, 1985;

         2. These Amendments to Certificate of Incorporation have been duly
adopted and approved by resolutions passed by a majority of the Corporation's
Board of Directors at a Board meeting held on April 3, 2003 and by resolution
passed by a majority of the Corporation's stockholders at a special shareholder
meeting held on April 9, 2003 in accordance with the provision of Section 242 of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware;

         3. The Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation shall be amended in
that the First Section of the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation shall
be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                  "FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Teledigital, Inc."

         4. The Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation shall be amended in
that the first paragraph of Item 1 under the Fourth Section of the Corporation's
Certificate of Incorporation shall be amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

                  "FOURTH:

                  1. Shares of Stock. The total number of shares of stock which
                  the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 50,000,000.
                  The par value of each of such shares is $0.025. These shares
                  shall consist of 45,000,000 common shares and 5,000,000 shares
                  of preferred stock. The Board of Directors is authorized to
                  establish, in the manner provided by law, one or more classes
                  or series of shares , and to fix the relative rights and
                  preference of each such class or series."

         The undersigned has executed this Amendments to Certificate of
Incorporation this 9th day of April, 2003, thereby acknowledging under penalties
of perjury that the foregoing is the act and deed of the undersigned and that
the facts stated therein are true.

                                        /s/ Richard L. Barnaby
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard L. Barnaby
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer of
                                        XOX Corporation
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pascual Samuel GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10084 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Pascual Samuel Guerrero, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pascual Samuel Guerrero has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guerrero has not filed a response. 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 *145issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit 10.192

 



 

February 18, 2019

 

By Mail

 

Jon E. Jipping

 

Re:  Amendment to Employment and Equity Agreements

 

Dear Jon:

 

As we discussed, in exchange for (1) your willingness to support and facilitate succession planning by agreeing to relinquish your role as Chief Business Unit Officer effective February 18, 2019, (2) your willingness to assume a leadership role in another important project or initiative in the future, and (3) your agreement to amend your December 21, 2012 Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) by striking Section 7.c(ii)(B), ITC Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) agrees that upon your voluntary termination of employment, your equity compensation awards, which would otherwise be forfeited, will continue to vest on their normal schedule if you do not meet the “retirement age” for continued vesting (i.e., age 65) at the time of your separation, provided, however, that you continue to perform in a satisfactory manner in your current position and any future position(s), and at the time of your separation you are not under investigation by the Company for conduct that would amount to Cause under Section 7.a.(ii)(A)—(E) of the Employment Agreement.  In this regard, effective as of the date you sign this letter, as set forth above, this letter hereby amends and modifies the Employment Agreement and any equity compensation award agreements, to which you are a party.  The terms of this letter shall also apply to any future equity compensation award agreements.

 

With the exception of the amendments set forth above, all terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement and equity compensation award agreements shall continue unchanged and in full force and effect.  You acknowledge that no promises or representations, oral or written, have been made regarding your employment other than those expressly stated herein, and that you have not relied on any other promises or representations relating to your employment in signing this letter.

 

This letter may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which will be deemed one and the same instrument.

 



 











 

Please sign and date this letter below and return the signed and dated letter to me on or before February 22, 2019 to acknowledge the change in the terms and conditions of the agreements referenced above.

 

We thank you for and look forward to your continued service with the Company.

 

	
 
    	
Sincerely,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
ITC Holdings Corp.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ Linda H. Apsey
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By: Linda H. Apsey
    
	
 
    	
Title: President and   Chief Executive Officer
    


 

 

	
ACKNOWLEDGED &   AGREED:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Jon E. Jipping
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Jon   E. Jipping
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
    	
2/18/2019
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen Reil PITKA, a.k.a. Arthur Dale Pitka, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30022

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*778Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 25, 2017

Jo Ann Farrington, Audrey Jane Ren-schen, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Fred Richard Curtner, III, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Daniel F. Poul-son, FPDAK-Federal Public Defender, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Glen Reil Pitka appeals the special condition of supervision requiring him to participate in sex offender assessment and treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pitka challenges the condition of supervised release that requires him to participate in an evaluation for sexual deviancy and, if required, sex offender treatment. In a motion filed on October 25, 2016, Pitka states that he has completed the evaluation. Thus, his challenge to that portion of the condition is moot. *See Cammermeyer v. Perry,*97 F.3d 1235, 1237 (9th Cir. 1996). With respect to the portion of the condition requiring treatment, Pitka argues that the court was required to give a fuller explanation for its necessity because the condition is broad enough to allow plethysmograph testing and, thus, implicates a significant liberty interest. In light of the government’s declaration filed on November 28, 2016, in which the government supports its assertion that penile plethysmograph testing is not used in the District of Alaska, we reject this contention. The district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the condition. *See United States v. Daniels,*541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pitka finally argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the condition because it involves a greater deprivation than is reasonably necessary. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion because, in light of Pitka’s circumstances and criminal history, the challenged condition is reasonably related to deterrence and protection of-the public, and it does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); *United States v. Stoterau,*524 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pitka’s motion to stay the challenged condition is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
M.S.C., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2259

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02530]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Emerging Technology Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Partially Closed Meeting

    The Emerging Technology Technical Advisory Committee (ETTAC) will 
meet on February 23, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time. The 
meeting will be available via teleconference. The Committee advises the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on the 
identification of emerging and foundational technologies with potential 
dual-use applications as early as possible in their developmental 
stages both within the United States and abroad.

Agenda

Open Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.
    2. Introduction by the Bureau of Industry and Security Leadership.
    3. Presentation: Space Telescope and Society (NASA), Questions and 
Answers
    4. Public Comments/Announcements

Closed Session

    5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 10(a)(1) 
and 10(a)(3).
    The open session will be accessible via teleconference. To join the 
conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e77584b5a5a4b007d5e5c4740494b5c6e4c475d004a414d00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8e1ceddccccdd96ebc8cad1d6dfddcaf8dad1cb96dcd7db96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a> no later than February 16, 2022.
    To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral 
statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements 
at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate 
distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the 
Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation 
materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 1, 
2022, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting 
dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and 
the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions 
relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. Sec. Sec.  10(a)(1) 
and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the 
public.
    For more information, please contact Yvette Springer via email.

Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-02530 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
AMENDED AND RESTATED
                       CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                       OF
                        PAINEWEBBER/GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME
                             LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I-D

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

       The  undersigned,  desiring  to amend and restate  its  certificate  of
limited   partnership   pursuant  to  the  Oklahoma  Revised  Uniform  Limited
Partnership  Act, as amended,  54 O.S. Supp.  1988, Sec.  301-365 (the "Act"),
does hereby state:

       1.    The name of the  limited  partnership  is  "PaineWebber/  Geodyne
Energy Income Limited Partnership I-D."

       2.    The  date  of  filing  the   original   certificate   of  limited
partnership is December 10, 1985.

       3. (a) The address of the office of the limited partnership, which is the
same address where the records of the limited partnership are kept, is 320 South
Boston, The Mezzanine, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-3708.

             (b)   The name and  address  of the agent for  service of process
are  Geodyne  Properties,  Inc.,  320  South  Boston,  The  Mezzanine,  Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74103--3708.

       4.    The name and  business  address  of the  general  partner  are as
follows:

                   Geodyne Properties, Inc.
                   320 South Boston, The Mezzanine
                   Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-3708

       5.    The  latest  date  upon  which  the  limited  partnership  is  to
dissolve is December 31, 1999.

       6.    The limited  partnership  hereby elects to become  subject to all
of the provisions of the Act.

DATED March 9, 1989.

                                        Geodyne Properties, Inc.
                                        General Partner of PaineWebber/
                                        Geodyne Energy Income Limited
                                        Partnership I-D

                                        By:  /s/ Michael E. Luttrell
                                          ---------------------------
                                        Title:  Executive Vice President
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 23, 2009 

d1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

138998 & (22) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138998 

 COA: 288228 

Wayne CC: 05-005982-FC 

GORDON RANDLE DAVID, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
#### Billy Ray SNEAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6747

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

Billy Ray Snead, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Billy Ray Snead seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, *127484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*587 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Snead has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. •

*DISMISSED*
Audrey LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2048

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Arnold De ARMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick J. GURNEY, Asst. Warden; Anton W. Daniel, housing unit manager and Institutional Classification Authority (ICA) hearing officer; T. S. *799Byrd, unit manager buildings three and four and also editor of a prison newsletter; Lt. A. L. White, supervisor of building six; Sgt. K. W. Forrest, institutional investigator; Sgt. W. Lucas, attached to building three under unit manager byrd; Sgt. W. L. Lewis, assistant hearings officer; S. W. Allen, institutional hearings office, Defendants-Appellees, and S. Darby, unit manager for buildings one and two; Lt. H. Manning, supervisor, personal property department; L. Baker, corporal corrections officer working personal property, Defendants.

No. 16-6462

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Arnold Lynn De Armond, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Leigh Berdichevsky, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arnold De Armond appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. De Armond v. Gurney, No. 2:15-cv-00203-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2016 & Feb. 24, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Jornal Oficial C 160A/27 d

| | ISSN 1977-1010 |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 160A |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 57.° ano27 de maio de 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1010

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 160A

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

57.° ano27 de maio de 2014

---

| Número de informação | Índice | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avisos |
| | PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS |
| | Agência Europeia de Medicamentos |
| 2014/C 160A/01 | Notificação de anulação | 1 |

Número de informação

Índice

Página

V   Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Agência Europeia de Medicamentos

2014/C 160A/01

Notificação de anulação

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 160A/02 | Recapitulação dos JO C A Concursos | 2 |

2014/C 160A/02

Recapitulação dos JO C A Concursos

2

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

V Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Agência Europeia de Medicamentos

| 27.5.2014 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | CA 160/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2014

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

CA 160/1

---

Notificação de anulação

2014/C 160 A/01

A Agência Europeia de Medicamentos decidiu anular o procedimento de seleção seguinte:

| — | EMA/AD/359: Chefe do Departamento de Operações de TI, Divisão de Tecnologias de Informação (AD 10). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/AD/359: Chefe do Departamento de Operações de TI, Divisão de Tecnologias de Informação (AD 10).

---

27.5.2014

| 27.5.2014 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | CA 160/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

CA 160/2

---

RECAPITULAÇÃO DOS JO C A CONCURSOS

2014/C 160 A/02

Lista dos JO C A publicados no ano em curso.

Salvo indicação em contrário, os JO são publicados em todas as versões linguísticas.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

---
Tyree JENKINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3859

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 12, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

LaROSE, C.J., and CRENSHAWand SLEET, JJ., Concur.