alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, et al Plaintiffs, and United States ex rel Doris Modglin and Russ Milko Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DJO GLOBAL, INC.; DJO Finance LLC; Orthofix, Inc., Defendants, and DJO Global Inc., DJO LLC, DJO Finance LLC, Biomet, Inc., EBI, LP and EBI, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55840

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 9, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed February 27, 2017

Phillip Eugene Benson, Esquire, Attorney, Warren-Benson Law Group, Minne-tonka, MN, Linda R. MacLean, Linda R. MacLean, Newport Beach, CA, Gerald C. Robinson, Simmer Law Group, PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, Donald R. Warren, Esquire, Attorney, Warren-Benson Law Group, LA Jolla, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Raymond A. Cardozo, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, Francisca Minghao Mok, Esquire, Attorney, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas Howie Suddath, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Reed Smith LLP, *595Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellee DJO LLC

Jessica Lynn Ellsworth, Attorney, Eugene Alexis Sokoloff, Michele W. Sartori, Esquire, Attorney, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Ap-pellees EBI, LP, EBI, LLC, Biomet, Inc.

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, NGUYEN, Circuit Judge, and AMON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Relators Doris Modglin and Russ Milko appeal the district court’s grant of Defendant’s motions to dismiss. For reasons stated in the district court’s two well-reasoned opinions, dated September 2, 2014, and May 8,2015, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

**

 'pjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### John Arthur FREE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary SWARTHOUT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-17631

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 17, 2017

Margaret Joan Littlefield, Attorney, Law Office of Margaret Littlefield, Boli-nas, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant

John Arthur Free, Pro Se

Jessica Nicole Blonien, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges,

*

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

*623MEMORANDUM ***

John Arthur Free appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a 2010 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings denying parole and deferring his next parole hearing for seven years in accordance with California Penal Code § 3041.5 (“Marsy’s Law”). We dismiss.

This court issued a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) on whether application of Marsy’s Law to delay Free’s next parole hearing for seven years violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, and whether Free’s membership in a class action precludes his individual litigation of this claim in habeas. We vacate the COA as improvidently granted and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See Nettles v.*Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), cert. denied, 580 U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 645, 196 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017)); *Phelps v. Alameda,*366 F.3d 722, 727-28, 730 (9th Cir. 2004) (merits panel has the power to rule on the propriety of a COA).

The dismissal of this appeal does not preclude Free from pursuing conditions of confinement claims in a properly filed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Joe Nathan JAMES, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0229

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.32


CASH COMPENSATION INFORMATION FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
 
Exelixis, Inc.
Cash Compensation for Non-Employee Directors 
	
					
	Board of Directors
	Retainer Fee
	

	$50,000
	


	Additional Chair Retainer Fee
	

	$30,000
	


	Meeting Fee12
	

	$2,500
	


	Audit Committee
	Retainer Fee
	

	$10,000
	


	Additional Chair Retainer Fee
	

	$15,000
	


	Meeting Fee13
	

	$1,000
	


	Compensation Committee
	Retainer Fee
	

	$8,000
	


	Additional Chair Retainer Fee
	

	$12,000
	


	Meeting Fee13
	

	$1,000
	


	Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee
	Retainer Fee
	

	$5,000
	


	Additional Chair Retainer Fee
	

	$10,000
	


	Meeting Fee14
	

	$1,000
	


	Research & Development Committee
	Retainer Fee
	

	$5,000
	


	Additional Chair Retainer Fee
	

	$10,000
	


	Meeting Fee14
	

	$1,000
	





		
	  1 
	Meetings for which minutes are generated count toward the meeting threshold to determine when Meeting Fees are to be paid.


		
	  2 
	Meeting Fee paid for all meetings in excess of eight meetings.


		
	  3 
	Meeting Fee paid for all meetings in excess of seven meetings.


		
	  4 
	Meeting Fee paid for all meetings in excess of four meetings.
Angel Luis TORRES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2095

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 25, 2018.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

CASANUEVA, Judge.

*418Angel Luis Torres appeals the order revoking his probation after a hearing. We affirm without comment the trial court's finding that Mr. Torres willfully violated his probation by failing to successfully complete a residential drug treatment program and by failing to submit to a random urine test. However, we reverse the revocation order to the extent that it incorrectly states that Mr. Torres admitted the violations, and we remand for the trial court to correct this scrivener's error. *See**Balmir v. State*, 174 So.3d 1101, 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.

KELLY and CRENSHAW. JJ., Concur.
Felix I. GASPARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2351

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 06, 2017

Upon consideration, petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby denied.

Following review of the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ., concur.
Frederick LANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2839

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6387

HUGH MAURICE ALLEN WADE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WENELISA NAVARRO, M.D.; ISAIAS TESSEMA, M.D.; ERWIN ALDANA, 

M.D.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:09-cv-01985-AW)

Submitted: August 19, 2011 Decided: August 24, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hugh Maurice Allen Wade, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton 

Andrews, Katrina J. Dennis, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hugh Maurice Allen Wade seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The 

notice of appeal was received in the district court shortly 

after expiration of the appeal period. Because Wade is 

incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it 

was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the 

court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988). The record does not reveal when Wade gave the notice of 

appeal to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand 

the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court 

to obtain this information from the parties and to determine 

whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and 

Houston v. Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be 

returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                   CURTIS W. MEWBOURNE/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


           I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne
Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners
00-A, L.P., (the "Registrant"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on
Form 10-K, for the annual period ended December 31, 2002 and filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Registrant fully
complies with the requirements of that section.

           I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.


                                                     /s/ Curtis W. Mewbourne
                                                   -------------------------
                                                   Name: Curtis W. Mewbourne
                                                   Date: March 28, 2003














                                1


<PAGE>
                                CERTIFICATION OF
                     J. ROE BUCKLEY/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                      OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


           I, J. Roe Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development
Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 00-A, L.P.,
(the "Registrant"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K,
for the annual period ended December 31, 2002 and filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Registrant fully complies
with the requirements of that section.

           I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.


                                                     /s/ J. Roe Buckley
                                                   --------------------
                                                   Name: J. Roe Buckley
                                                   Date: March 28, 2003



















                                2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel RENTERIA-BEAR, also known as Gabriel Renteria-Vear, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41580

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 14, 2017

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kathryn She-phard, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gabriel Renteria-Bear pleaded guilty to being found in the United States after a previous deportation. At sentencing, the district court agreed to recommend that Renteria-Bear be housed in a facility offering job training; that recommendation was not contained in the written judgment. Thus, Renteria-Bear requests remand pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 so that the district court can correct the written judgment to reflect the oral recommendation. The Government concedes that the judgment should be modified to correct the error. Accordingly, we affirm and remand to the district court for correction of the clerical error. *See*FED. R. CRIM. P. 36.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED with instruction.

*

 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.
#### Jorge Estuardo SANCHEZ-SOTO Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of United States Respondent

No. 16-4281

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Filed: October 11, 2017

Lauren Schmoke, Kasaby *&*Nicholls, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner

Sarah Abigail Byrd, Trial Attorney, Carl H. McIntyre, Thankful Townsend Van-derstar, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Jorge Estuardo Sanchez-Soto petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ), which denied him withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.

Sanchez-Soto sought immigration relief based on his membership in two particular social groups: (1) Guatemalans whose families have been targeted for attacks by gangs and continue to receive threats, and (2) returnees from the United States who are perceived to be wealthy. In concluding that he was ineligible for withholding of removal, the IJ found that he failed to demonstrate past or future persecution based on his membership in a cognizable social group. Sanchez-Soto offered no evidence showing his proposed groups were viewed as socially distinct within Guatemalan society, and failed to distinguish them from groups previously held not cognizable. *See Ngugi v. Lynch,*826 F.3d 1132, 1137-39 (8th Cir. 2016) (whether group is particular social group is question of law reviewed de novo); *De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder,*713 F.3d 375, 380 (8th Cir. 2013) (social group must not be defined just by fact its members have been targeted for persecution); *Matul-Hernandez v. Holder,**322685 F.3d 707, 711-13 (8th Cir. 2012) (Guatemalans returning from United States and perceived as wealthy is not particular social group). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s factual determinations, and there was no error of law. *See Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey,*531 F.3d 624, 627, 629 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review and withholding requirements).

As to Sanchez-Soto’s CAT claim, his evidence did not show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his home country. *See De Castro-Gutierrez,*713 F.3d at 381-82 (standard for CAT relief).

The petition is denied. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The IJ’s denial of asylum is not before the panel. *See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at                     *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.*                     Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.                

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 28, 2022.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago*                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

                    1.                     *First Federal Bank of Wisconsin Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Racine, Wisconsin;*                     to retain voting shares of FFBW, Inc., Brookfield, Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of First Federal Bank of Wisconsin, Waukesha, Wisconsin.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 8, 2022.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2022-03011 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Roderick ELLIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2057

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

Roderick Ellis, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, FERNANDEZ, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Jordan v. State*, 190 So.3d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ; *Maxwell v. State*, 69 So.3d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ("The Florida Supreme Court's decision in *State v. Montgomery*, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla. 2010) was rendered well after Maxwell's convictions and sentences were final, and it is not retroactively applicable.").
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcus CALDWELL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11306 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

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

Marcus Caldwell, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Marcus Caldwell 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). Caldwell 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 presents no nonfrivolous 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. *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.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7686

TREMAINE RASHON WRAY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN DENNIS BUSH , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Bruce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 9:17

- cv - 03066

- BHH )

Submitted : December 1, 2020 Decided: February 25, 2021

Before KEENAN, RICHARDSON , and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Tremaine Rashon Wray , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tremaine Rashon Wray seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Wray’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate bo th that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wray has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wray’s motions for 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 court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED