alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernon McKea EDWARDS, a/k/a Vernon from Ridgeville, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4694

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 19, 2017

Miller W. Shealy, Jr., MILLER SHEA-LY LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vernon McKea Edwards pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribution of crack and powder cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). The district court imposed a 188-month sentence. In accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Edwards’ counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in declining to rule on Edwards’ objection to the presen-tence report. Edwards filed a pro se brief,* arguing that the district court erred in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range, that the error resulted in a breach of the plea agreement, and that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the breach issue at sentencing. We affirm.

At sentencing, Edwards’ counsel challenged a statement in the PSR that, in a certain conversation intercepted by wiretap, Edwards referred to the purchase of cocaine, arguing that the conversation actually concerned the purchase of marijuana. The probation officer explained that the drug quantity discussed in the conversation did not affect the sentencing recommendation. Thus, the district court proper*214ly concluded that it need not rule on the objection. Fed. R. Crira. P. 32(i)(3)(B) (requiring sentencing court to rule on disputed matters unless “a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing”).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Edwards, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Edwards requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Edwards.

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*

*

 We construe Edwards’ “Motion in Opposition to the Filing of an *Anders*Brief by Counsel” as a pro se brief and conclude that the claims raised therein lack merit.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE BISYS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          40,832
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,391
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,682
<PP&E>                                         108,927
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 453,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,975
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           545
<OTHER-SE>                                     286,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   453,613
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,313
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,998
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,407
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    70
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,471
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,188
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,283
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,283
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 10.35**

 

**Rentrak Corporation**

 

**Summary of Compensation Arrangementsfor Non-Employee Directors**

 

Eachnon-employee director of Rentrak Corporation (“Rentrak”) receives an annualretainer of $20,000; non-employee directors who serve on the Audit Committee receivean additional retainer of $2,500.  Non-employeedirectors are also paid $500 for each board meeting they attend in person or bytelephone conference call.  Each directorwho serves on a board committee is paid $500 for attending each in-person ortelephone conference committee meeting.  Rentrakalso reimburses directors for their travel expenses for each meeting attendedin person.

 

UnderRentrak’s 1997 Equity Participation Plan, each non-employee director receivesan automatic grant, at the beginning of each fiscal year, of a stock option exercisablefor 10 years, subject to earlier termination if the director ceases to be adirector.  The option entitles thedirector to purchase 10,000 shares of Rentrak common stock at a purchase priceequal to the fair market value of Rentrak’s stock on the date of grant and becomesexercisable in full one year after the date of grant.  Each chair of a board committeesimultaneously receives an option to purchase an additional 2,500 shares on thesame terms.

 

1

----
Timothy L. JARQUIN v. Danny R. BLANKS, Individually and in his Capactiy as a Member and Manager of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; Barlow J. Cook, Individually and in his Capacity as a Member of Pont Chartrain Partners, L.L.C; James R. Washington, III, Individually and in his Capacity as a Member of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.; Mary LeBlanc, Individually and in her Capacity as Director of Human Resources of Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.

NO. 2018-CC-0548

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

*569Denied.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
**Exhibit 14**

 

**CONSENT OF R. DENNIS BERGEN**

 

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-Fof New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connectionwith, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the New Afton Mine,British Columbia, Canada”, dated March 23, 2015, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financialyear ended December 31, 2014, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statementon Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc. 

 

Dated this 27th day of March, 2015

 

 

*/s/ Dennis Bergen	*

R. Dennis Bergen, P.Eng.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000883573
<NAME>                             F-1000 Futures Fund L.P., Series VIII
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                 4,029,356
<SECURITIES>                          11,570,219
<RECEIVABLES>                            280,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      15,879,852
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        15,879,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    441,228
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                            15,438,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          15,879,852
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         569,694
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         176,394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          393,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             393,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              29.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

I, E.Thomas Hart, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterended April 2, 2006, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of QuickLogic Corporation.

 
|     | By:      | /s/ E.  Thomas Hart        |
|----------|----------|----------------------------|
|     | Date:    | May 12, 2006               |
|     | Name:    | E. Thomas  Hart            |
| * * | *Title:* | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

 

I, CarlM. Mills, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the QuarterlyReport of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedApril 2, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information containedin such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of QuickLogicCorporation.

 
|     | By:      | /s/ Carl M.  Mills         |
|----------|----------|----------------------------|
|     | Date:    | May 12, 2006               |
|     | Name:    | Carl M.  Mills             |
| * * | *Title:* | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
Michael Edwin HARDY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1600

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
| /s/      Robert H. Schottenstein               |
|------------------------------------------------|
| Robert      H. Schottenstein                   |
| Chairman      of the Board, Chief Executive    |
| Officer      (principal executive officer) and |
| President                                      |

----

| /s/      Phillip G. Creek                              |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Phillip      G. Creek                                  |
| Executive      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |
| (principal      financial officer) and Director        |

----

| /s/      J. Thomas Mason                       |
|------------------------------------------------|
| J.      Thomas Mason                           |
| Executive      Vice President, General Counsel |
| and      Director                              |

----

| /s/      Joseph A. Alutto |
|---------------------------|
| Joseph      A. Alutto     |
| Director                  |

----

| /s/Friedrich      K. M. Böhm |
|-----------------------------------|
| Friedrich      K. M. Böhm    |
| Director                          |

----

| /s/      Yvette McGree Brown |
|------------------------------|
| Yvette      McGee Brown      |
| Director                     |

----

| /s/      Thomas D. Igoe |
|-------------------------|
| Thomas      D. Igoe     |
| Director                |

----

| /s/      Jeffrey H. Miro |
|--------------------------|
| Jeffrey      H. Miro     |
| Director                 |

----

| /s/      Norman L. Traeger |
|----------------------------|
| Norman      L. Traeger     |
| Director                   |
David TREJO-LOZANO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-3513

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>



                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         1)       With Design in Mind, a California corporation, a wholly-owned
                  subsidiary

         2)       Janex Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, a wholly-owned
                  subsidiary

         3)       Pro Gains Company Limited, a Hong Kong corporation 50% owned
                  by the Company and 50% owned by Janex

         4)       Malibu Fun Stuffed, Inc., a California corporation, a
                  wholly-owned subsidiary

         5)       Malibu Fun Stuffed International Limited, a Hong Kong
                  corporation 99% owned by Malibu Fund Stuffed, Inc. and 100%
                  owned by the Company

         6)       DaMert Toys and Games, Inc., an Arizona corporation
United States Navy–Marine Corps

Court of Criminal Appeals

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Darren P. GOODLOE

Information Systems Technician (E-6), U.S. Navy Corps

Appellant

No. 201800230

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.

Decided: 8 February 2019.

Military Judge: 

Captain Aaron C. Rugh, JAGC, USN.

Approved Sentence: Confinement for 12 months, reduction in rank to 

paygrade E-6, and a letter of reprimand. Sentence adjudged 27 March

2018 by a special court-martial convened at Naval Consolidated Brig 

Miramar, San Diego, California, consisting of a military judge sitting 

alone.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Gregory Hargis, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

Before HUTCHISON, LAWRENCE, and GEIS

Appellate Military Judges.
United States v. Goodloe, No. 201800230

2

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s 

substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 

859(a), 866(c). 

The findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are 

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1373 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1373

  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require a Federal 
     medical assistance percentage of 100 percent for urban Indian 
                 organizations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2021

Mr. Ruiz (for himself, Mr. Young, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Khanna, 
    Mr. Stanton, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Cole, Mr. 
Grijalva, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Cardenas, and Ms. DelBene) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require a Federal 
     medical assistance percentage of 100 percent for urban Indian 
                 organizations, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Urban Indian Health Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. FULL FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PERCENTAGE FOR URBAN INDIAN 
              ORGANIZATIONS.

    Section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is 
amended by inserting after ``by an Indian tribe or tribal organization 
(as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act)'' 
the following: ``, or through an urban Indian organization (as defined 
in section 4 of such Act) pursuant to a grant or contract with the 
Indian Health Service under title V of the Indian Health Care 
Improvement Act''.
                                 <all>
```
Stephen D. RABOW, Appellant, v. COMPREHENSIVE MEDPSYCH SYSTEMS, INC.; Christine F. Ryan and Geoffrey Kanter, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-3683

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1281 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1281

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2021

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 
   clinic in Gaylord, Michigan, as the ``Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews 
          Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY-BASED 
              OUTPATIENT CLINIC, GAYLORD, MICHIGAN.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 
clinic located at 2782 S. Otsego Avenue, Gaylord, Michigan, shall after 
the date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the 
``Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews Department of Veterans Affairs Health 
Care Clinic''. Any reference to such clinic in any law, regulation, 
map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be 
considered to be a reference to the Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews 
Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 20, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Jack H. Brown, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 9, 2006     /s/ Jack H. Brown   Jack H. Brown  Chairman of the Board, President,  and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)
Michael CABREJA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2209

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.