alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Raymond GARCIA, a/k/a Freddie Andaya, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Detective J. P. MCCLASKEY, Det. City of Concord Police Department; Detective K. Childers; Detective R. Gonsalez; United States of America; Detective Kelly Seagraves; Detective Elizabeth Love; Detective G. Bacote; Detective J. Davis; Sheriff Kevin Auten; Detective Uvaldo Rios, Defendants-Appellees, and City of Concord, North Carolina; Rowan County, North Carolina; Chief Guy Smith, Defendants.

No. 17-6108

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Freddie Andaya, Appellant Pro Se. To-rin L. Fury, William L. Hill, FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Lynne P. Klauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Steven N. Baker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina; Kenneth Ray Raynor, RAYNOR LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Garcia appeals the magistrate judge’s orders* entering judgment in favor of Defendants in Garcia’s action in which he alleged the use of excessive force during his arrest. The record does not contain a transcript of the jury trial. An appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c). An appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis is entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Garcia has waived review of the issues on appeal that depend upon the transcript to show error. *See generally*Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); *Keller v. Prince George’s Cty.,*827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). Moreover, because Garcia’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the magistrate judge’s disposition, Garcia has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b) (providing that réview is confined to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.); *Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s judgment. We deny Garcia’s motion for appointment of counsel, and we dispense *237with 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*

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 636(c) (2012).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Ruben ROBLEDO-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11477 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 1, 2017

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

Mario Ruben Robledo-Duran, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario Ruben Robledo-Duran 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). Roble-do-Duran has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant parts of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal of the conviction presents no *191nonfrivolous issue 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 in part as frivolous, *see*5th Oír. R. 42.2, and in part as moot based on Robledo-Duran’s completion of the prison term imposed and the absence of a term of supervised release, *see United States v. Heredia-Holguin,*823 F.3d 337, 341 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

*

 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.
Shan E. MOORE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0422

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Yvon JOLY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Sean KLINGLE, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1646

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## Timeline fo r Product Certification to Ne w EP A Rule

**Pr omulg**  **ation Fe**  **bruary 3**  **rd** Fir st day to submit 30 day notice to EP

A **Mar ch 3**  **rd**

Fir st da y an y lab can begin t es ting

**April 3**  **rd** Data reduction and re port gener ation **Mar ch 20**  **th** First da y t es ting could be complet ed

**April 6**  **th** Re port sent to EP

A **Ef fe**  **ctive Date May 3**  **rd** WA F & Single Burn Rate Appliances re quir ed to meet new re quir ements

**July 6th** Date EP A is r equir ed to issue certification on compliant pr oduct

- 2 months after compliant date
#### Daniel J. WILLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA; Dan Wooten, Individually and as Leading Attorney; Carol M. Hood, Individually and as Personal Representative; Sheri M. Davenport, Individually and a Former Town Counsel; James R. Franck, Individually and a Former Town Tree Expert; Ann Brock, Individually and as Former Town Council Member; Claire Lynn Brock, Individually, as Attorney and as Magistrate of Jones County; Charles Henderson, Individually and as Former Town Counsel as Jones County Clerk of Court; Joffree T. Leggett, Individually and as Town Mayor (Deceased); Charles C. Jones, Jr., Individually and as Member of Town Council; Edward Eubanks, Individually and Member of Town Council (Deceased); C. Glenn Spivey, Individually and as Town Clerk, Respondents-Appellees. Daniel J. Willis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher C. Henderson, Clerk of Court, Jones County North Carolina; Town of Trenton; Sylvia A. Willis, Mayor; Albert Riggs, Town Council Member; Charles Jones, Jr., Town Council Member; Willard Lewis, Town Council Member; Glenn Spivey, Clerk; North Carolina Department of Transportation; Lyndo Tippett, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Transportation, it agents and employees; Daniel Devane; Marvin Blount, III; Paul L. Jones, Superior Court Judge, Judicial District 8A; W. Parsons, Superior Court Judge, Judicial District 4A, Defendants-Appellees. Daniel J. Willis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jones County Board of Education; Town of Trenton, North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. Daniel J. Willis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tyndall Lewis, Respondent-Appellee. Daniel J. Willis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael T. Bracy, Superintendent, Jones County Schools; Brenda Reece; Jones County Commissioners, Respondents-Appellees. In re: Daniel J. Willis, Petitioner. Daniel J. Willis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Town of Trenton, and its Council Members, and/or their Successors; Glenn Spivey, Town Clerk and /or their Successor; Sheri M. Davenport, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 16-2422, No. 16-2423, No. 16-2424, No. 16-2425, No. 16-2426, No. 16-2427, No. 16-2428

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se.

*246Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Johnson Willis appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for leave to file several civil actions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Willis v. Town of Trenton, NC,*Nos. 4:16-mc-00001-H; 4:16-mc-00002-H; 4:16-mc-00004-H; 4:16-mc-00005-H; 4:16-mc-00006-H; 4:15-mc-00007-H; 4:15-mc-00005-H, 2016 WL 8814688 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 2016). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny Willis’s petition for writ of mandamus. 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emma Leticia NAJERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6606

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

*173Emma Leticia Najera, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Laura Day Rottenborn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emma Leticia Najera seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 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 motion 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 Najera has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this coprt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Raghvendra SINGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15626

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*254Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Raghvendra Singh, Pro Se

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Raghvendra Singh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law claims related to his real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with court orders. *Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,*356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Singh’s action was proper because Singh failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *see also Edwards,*356 F.3d at 1063 (setting forth de novo standard of review for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).

Dismissal of Singh’s third amended complaint without leave to amend was proper because the district court provided Singh with three opportunities to amend, and further amendment would have been futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile). We do not consider Singh’s contention that Karen Singh was not given an opportunity to amend the complaint because Karen Singh is not a party to the appeal.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in not appointing counsel because Singh did not file a motion for the appointment of counsel, and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. *See Cano v. Taylor,*739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

Singh’s request for the appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Affirmed and Opinion Filed July 25, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-12-01246-CR

ALEXANDER JAMES GABRIEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401-81517-10



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans Opinion by Chief Justice Wright

Alexander James Gabriel appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for robbery. See T EX

.

P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 29.02 (West 2011). The trial court as sessed punishment at fourteen years’

imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney f iled a brief in which he concludes the appeal is

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a profes sional evaluation of the record showing why, in

effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel de livered a copy of the brief to appellant. We

advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he di d not file a pro se response. See‐ 2 ‐ Kelly v. State , 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014) (identifying duties of

appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).

We have reviewed the reco rd and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explain ing appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably

support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 121246F.U05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE‐ 3 ‐ 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

ALEXANDER JAMES GABRIEL, Appellant

No. 05-12-01246-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 401-81517-10). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Myers and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered July 25, 2014
rgnx-ex1012_492.htm



EXHIBIT 10.12

REGENXBIO INC.

COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

(as adopted by the Board of Directors on September 22, 2015, 
amended as of November 2, 2018 and effective as of January 1, 2019)


	
A.
	
Cash Compensation 





	
 
	
1.
	
Board retainer: $40,000 per year for each non-employee director, paid in quarterly installments in arrears.





	
 
	
2.
	
Chairman of the Board retainer: $30,000 per year, paid in quarterly installments in arrears.





	
 
	
3.
	
Committee chair retainer: $18,000 per year for the Audit Committee chair, $12,500 per year for the Compensation Committee chair, and $8,500 per year for the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee chair, paid in quarterly installments in arrears.





	
 
	
4.
	
Committee member retainer: $9,000 per year for each non-chair member of the Audit Committee, $6,000 per year for each non-chair member of the Compensation Committee, and $5,000 per year for each non-chair member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, paid in quarterly installments in arrears.





	
B.
	
Equity Compensation 





	
 
	
1.
	
Initial stock option grant: stock option for each non-employee director to purchase 25,000 shares of REGENXBIO Inc. (the “Company”) common stock.  The per share price of each option shall equal 100% of the Fair Market Value (as defined in the 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the “EIP”)) of a share of common stock of the Company on the date the option is granted.  The option shall vest in equal monthly installments over the 36 months following the grant date, with immediate full vesting in the event of a Change in Control (as defined in the EIP).  The option will be granted by the Compensation Committee under the EIP in conjunction with the director’s initial appointment or election to the Board.





	
 
	
2.
	
Annual stock option grant: stock option for each non-employee director to purchase 12,500 shares of the Company’s common stock.  The per share price of each option shall equal 100% of the Fair Market Value of a share of common stock of the Company on the date the option is granted.  The option shall vest in equal monthly installments over the 12 months following the grant date, with immediate full vesting in the event of a Change in Control. The option will be granted by the Compensation Committee under the EIP following the election of such director at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders.






 


	
C.
	
Other Items





	
 
	
1.
	
Non-employee directors will be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred to attend Board and Committee meetings.





	
 
	
2.
	
Customary director and officer insurance is provided for non-employee directors.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Payaso, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10537

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*939Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Mary Sue Feldmeier, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Keith J. Hilzendeger, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ—Federal Public Defenders Office (Phoenix), Phoenix, AZ, Eric Dennis Marsteller, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Tucson), Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mario Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Gonzalez contends that the district court failed to explain adequately its denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We agree. The district court’s order does not address or explain its rejection of the arguments presented in the parties’ joint stipulation for a reduction of sentence. Accordingly, we vacate and remand. *See United States v. Trujillo,*713 F.3d 1003, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court must provide some explanation for rejecting a defendant’s non-frivolous arguments).

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]               
[Page 28543]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21my10-28]                         

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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

 
Sunshine Act Meeting: Canceled

Date and Time: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 11 a.m.-12:15 p.m.

Place: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

Closed Meeting: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
(BBG) will meet in closed session to review and discuss a number of 
issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international 
broadcasting. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and 
personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating 
to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This 
meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose 
matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the 
interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 
U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature 
disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate 
implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)) 
In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal 
personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International 
Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6))

Contact Person for More Information: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-12358 Filed 5-19-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Cardtrend International Inc., formerly, Asia Payment Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Cardtrend International Inc., formerly Asia Payment Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006 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 Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cardtrend International Inc., formerly Asia Payment Systems, Inc.
|   



By: KING K. NGKing K. Ng Chief (Principal) Executive OfficerAugust 23, 2007















---
Arthur B. CALVIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3524

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 31, 2018]

Arthur B. Calvin, Miami, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Conner, JJ., concur.
FILED IN12th COURT OF APPEALS        TYLER, TEXAS7/27/2015 2:24:46 PM        CATHY S. LUSK                Clerk