alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: Peter ROUKIS, Petitioner.

No. 16-1372

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 23, 2016

Peter Roukis, Petitioner Pro Se.

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

*841Petition dismissed without prejudice by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Peter Roukis filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus seeking reassignment to a military correctional facility and challenging his confinement, which he alleges violates Article 12 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 812 (2012). This court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), see Fed. R. App. P. 22(a), and this case provides no reason to depart from the general rule.' Moreover, we conclude that the interest of justice would not be served by transferring the case to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012). Accordingly, we deny Rouk-is leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition without prejudice to Roukis’ right to file a petition in the appropriate district court after exhaustion of his administrative remedies on his Article 12 claim. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Jean LUXAMA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-325

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 29, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John Louis ATKINS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10876 c/w No. 16-10877 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 21, 2017

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

Seth Kretzer, Law Offices of Seth Kret-zer, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant John Louis Atkins

John Louis Atkins, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant John Louis Atkins appeals the simultaneous revocations of two terms of supervised release. The revocations were based on his having possessed a firearm, even though he was acquitted on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

*153We review a revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Spraglin,*418 F.3d 479, 480 (5th Cir. 2005). Revocation was proper if the district court found “by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his release.” *Id.; see*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The evidence and reasonable inferences from it are reviewed in the light favorable to the government. *United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz,*38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994). The acquittal at the criminal trial does not preclude a revocation based on the conduct underlying the criminal charges. *See United States v. Teran,*98 F.3d 831, 835-36 (5th Cir. 1996) (revoking probation).

Atkins contends that, under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the district court could take notice only of the “adjudicative fact” of his acquittal rather than the underlying evidence of firearm possession. His arguments about the nuances of judicial notice under Rule 201 are immaterial because the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in revocation proceedings. *See United States v. Williams,*847 F.3d 251, 253 (5th Cir. 2017), *petition for cert. filed*(June 16, 2017) (No. 17-5015); Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3).

Despite our previous order instructing Atkins to address “the substance or sufficiency of [the] evidence to prove the underlying conduct” of firearm possession, he has not done so. Regardless, the evidence was sufficient. Defense counsel conceded that the trial evidence showed that a functioning firearm was found in the back of Atkins’s truck. Other unrebutted evidence showed that, during an investigation that led to Atkins being charged with murder, a revolver believed to be the murder weapon was found in his truck. That evidence, viewed in the light favorable to the government, supports a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Atkins possessed a firearm. *See Spraglin,*418 F.3d at 480; *Alaniz-Alaniz,*38 F.3d at 792. The district court did not abuse its discretion, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Tiffiny ROUSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4094

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1338 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 8 ) ll-E-1 9 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 6/17/2008 1:48:05PM

Sheet 8 of 105P. 2

V I "
Dat e 

# •\\ 

# r a .$m li! ' 

# \ _ _ 

# .._— l 

# 3 - / ^ : 

# T o 

# A-89-1 0 II-E-1 9 

# I o CONTAC TREPOR T

, / Originato r/ 

# \0 K

# r-> . CONTACTBY : TELEPHON E H MEETIN G D Othe r NAME , TITL E & ORGANIZATIO N 7 O ' i W cv^ v \t- ' 

# (*£J u ^- Lo, -



# :i L ADDRES S & TELEPHON E NUMBE R g^q Fa.c^r - *

> (,-, ^ PURPOS E O R SUBJEC

T(Giv e project numbe ri f appropriate ) SUMMAR Y 

# pi. / di ^ <>^ .)'-iw'.j U co i f .'•'i|c^v,cii'oa l 

# . //• • ••<v.' y

# U .(.'t

^ vJ 

### : ^ ^ Ar o i A

### p ' /V \ ,Vva _ ^ T '

t o ^ c ^!uA- vl 1 ^ - co; ! ^ j —^ s .'r t • ) i» 1 l^ | "HM_, J«CVA - Coj f f^-s - t^ijf "

I nr\ . p U , I cvUf c,Afer^4. t L ,r ^ -ftia X pu<.k*.(K S*vJLo

Ca_n^o f ivUJc. o r j 

# " Y k(,€c L ^ > l 

# ft ^WccJLie ^ a^lkl S -/LL , joa- ya ^| Q , <fi ( . 6 '

ACTIO N t o l* » 

# i Distribution :
Jeannie M. LANDEROS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The BANK OF NEW YORK, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-3040

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 599 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California, as the 

‘‘Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2023 

Mr. GOMEZ (for himself, Mrs. KIM of California, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. SCHIFF, 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. 

KAMLAGER-DOVE, Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California, Ms. BROWNLEY, 

Mr. SWALWELL, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. PORTER, Mr. ISSA, Mr. 

LAMALFA, Mr. RUIZ, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. HARDER of California, Mrs. STEEL, Mr. COSTA, Mr. CORREA, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. 

VARGAS, Mr. KILEY, Ms. JACOBS, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. VALADAO, Mr. 

PETERS, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. CALVERT, Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, and Ms. CHU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office’’. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 599 IH

1 SECTION 1. DOSAN AHN CHANG HO POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 

4 in Los Angeles, California, shall be known and designated 

5 as the ‘‘Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dosan Ahn Chang 

10 Ho Post Office’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
-1-

 
Tenant’s or Landlord’s, as applicable, dealings or contacts with brokers or agents, other than, asto Tenant, Tenant’s Broker.     **Section 6 Effect of Amendment.**As modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditionsof the Lease remain unchanged and in full force and effect. In the event of any express conflict orinconsistency between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the Lease, the terms of thisAmendment shall control and govern.     **Section 7 Counterparts.**This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each ofwhich shall be an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and thesame instrument.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.           **LANDLORD:** **TENANT:**           **THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND** **STEMCELLS, INC.,****STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY** **a Delaware corporation**           By:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chandra PADGETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4013

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

*94Chandra Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Tommie DeWayne Pearson, Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Chandra Padgett seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion in her criminal case. Our review of the district court’s order is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012). *United States v. Davis,*679 F.3d 190, 193 (4th Cir. 2012). While the statute gives us “jurisdiction to hear challenges to the lawfulness of the method used by the district court in making its sentencing decision,” we lack “jurisdiction to review any part of a discretionary sentencing decision.” *Id.*at 194. Because the sole issue Padgett raises on appeal challenges the district court’s discretionary sentencing decision, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, E. Thomas Hart, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Reportof QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 29, 2009, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of QuickLogic Corporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/  E. Thomas Hart                                  |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Date:  | May 8,  2009                                    |
|   | Name:  | E.  Thomas Hart                                      |
|   | Title: | *Chairman of the Board and Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

I, Ralph S. Marimon,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Reportof QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 29, 2009, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of QuickLogic Corporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/  Ralph S. Marimon                                  |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Date:  | May 8,  2009                                      |
|   | Name:  | Ralph  S. Marimon                                      |
|   | Title: | *Vice President, Finance and  Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
msbi_Current_Folio_Ex1030



		

			Exhibit 10.30

		





		
			AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			THIS AMENDMENT NO.  2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of January 1, 2019 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Midland States Bank, an Illinois banking corporation (the “Bank”,  hereinafter referred to as the “Employer”), and Jeffrey S. Mefford (“Executive”).
		

		
			 
		

		
			RECITALS
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 A.
			

			
	
			
			Executive serves as President of the Bank, and has entered into an Employment Agreement with the Company and the Bank, dated as of December 1, 2010, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement dated as of December 15, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”).




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 B.
			

			
	
			
			The Compensation Committee of Midland States Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) has approved increases to the Executive’s target Incentive Bonus and long-term incentive bonus percentages and instructed that an amendment to Executive’s Employment Agreement be executed reflecting such increases.




		
			 
		

		
			AGREEMENTS
		

		
			 
		

		
			Now therefore, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			The reference in Section 4(b) of the Employment Agreement to a target Incentive Bonus is hereby amended to “not less than sixty percent  (60%)”; and the reference to  a long-term incentive bonus percentage for the Executive is hereby amended to “fifty-five percent (55%).”




		
			In all other respects the Employment Agreement shall remain fully in force and effect.
		

		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.
		

		
			 
		

		
			MIDLAND STATES BANKJEFFREY S. MEFFORD
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By:  /s/ Leon J. Holschbach/s/ Jeffrey S. Mefford 
		

		
			Name:Leon J. Holschbach[Signature]
		

		
			Its:Vice-Chairman
Tavares HUTCHINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3284

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03057]

[[Page 8126]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 230, Airborne Weather 
Detection Systems Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 230, Airborne Weather 
Detection Systems Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
third meeting of the Airborne Weather Detection Systems Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 17-19 2015 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 
p.m. on March 17-18 and 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. on March 19.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 230. The agenda will 
include the following:

March 17

 Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
 Agenda Overview
 Meeting #2 Minutes approval
 Discussion of activities with EUROCAE WG-95
 Discussion of draft modification of SC-230 Terms of Reference 
to include modification to DO-213
 Review of General Requirements sections
 Review of PWS sections

March 18

 Review of Turbulence sections
 Review of Test Procedures sections
 Review of Test Procedures sections
 Review of Operational and Installed sections

March 19

 Review of Atmospheric Threat sections
 Discuss scope and content of DO-213 working group
 Action Item Review
 Other Actions
 FRAC Process Presentation
 Date and Place of Next Meetings
 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 10, 2015.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration, 
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-03057 Filed 2-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000472

02-NOV-2018

08:32 AM
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7768** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
WILLIAM LARNELL ECKLES, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:00

- cr
- 00046

- RLV

- 4 )

Submitted : December 13 , 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

William Larnell Eckles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
William Larnell Eckles, Jr., appeals the district

court ’ s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (C)(2) (2006) motion

for a sentence reduction

. * We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. United States v. Eckles , No.

5:00

- cr
- 00046

- RLV

- 4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2012) . 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

* Although the district court granted Eckles’s motion, Eckles contends on appeal that he was entitled to an even further reduction.
STATE of Louisiana v. Blair TAYLOR

NO. 2018-KA-0084

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 6, 2018

Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., Donna Andrieu Irena Zajickova, ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/STATE OF LOUISIANA

Christopher A. Aberle, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P.O. Box 8583, Mandeville, LA 70470-8583, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

(Court composed of Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Tiffany G. Chase )

*1290This appeal arises from Defendant's convictions on two counts of second-degree murder and five counts of attempted second-degree murder.

On February 23, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for new trial, arguing that the verdict was "contrary to the law and evidence." The record shows that the district court sentenced Defendant without first acting on Defendant's motion for new trial. " La. C.Cr.P. art. 853 provides that a motion for new trial based upon all grounds except newly-discovered evidence must be filed and disposed of prior to sentencing." *State v. Nora* , 2013-0892, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/18/14), 143 So.3d 1237, 1241.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Defendant's rights to appeal his convictions and sentences after the district court's ruling on the motion for new trial are hereby preserved.

Conjointly, Defendant's Motion to Supplement the Record and to Suspend Briefing Dates and the State of Louisiana's Motion for Extension of Time in which to file Appellee's brief are denied as moot.

**APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD DENIED; MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED**
Exhibit 99.1

Certificate Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Catalina Marketing Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel D. Granger, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-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) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|                                                                                                                                    |   |               |        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|
| /s/ Daniel D. Granger                                                                                                              |   |     |   |
|                                                                                                                                    |   |               |        |
| Daniel D. GrangerPresident, Chief Executive OfficerChairman of the Board and Director (Principal Executive Officer)August 13, 2002 |   |               |   |