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

No. 17-10524 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(October 3, 2017)

*590Yvette Rhodes, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Shauna S. Hale, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Meghan Ann Collins, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HULL, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

DeAndre Gray appeals the 240-month sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Mr. Gray argues that the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(b)(l) because it relied on three prior Texas convictions that the Fifth Circuit recently held do not qualify as controlled substance offenses under the Sentencing Guidelines. *See United States v. Tanksley,*848 F.3d 347, 352 (5th Cir.), *supplemented,*854 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2017).

At the time of his sentencing, Mr. Gray failed to object to the district court’s application of the career-offender enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines, so we review his challenge for plain error. Under that highly circumscribed review, there can be no plain error unless, at the time of the district court’s ruling, controlling precedent from the Supreme Court or this Circuit directly established that the district court’s ruling was erroneous. *See United States v. Lejarde-Rada,*319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003).

Mr. Gray failed to establish plain error because he has not cited a single case from the Supreme Court or this Circuit directly holding that the Texas convictions at issue on this appeal do not qualify as controlled substance offenses under the Sentencing Guidelines, Indeed, by relying almost exclusively on *Tanksley,*Mr. Gray all but concedes that no binding precedent existed to establish plain error.

Mr. Gray, moreover, has not shown that he was prejudiced by any error because the district court sentenced him to 240 months’ imprisonment, which is within the guidelines range (235-293 months) he would have been subject to but for his career offender status, and he has not demonstrated that the district court would have imposed an even lower sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Gray’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Kenneth W. Bell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pacific WebWorks, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.  Date: September 24, 2007/s/ Kenneth W. Bell
Kenneth W. Bell
Chief Executive Officer
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Zlonor%bl%

B. Faua%ttYora%, Speeker Eotme of Reprsseittatives Au~tln, Tazslr
Bear 81r: Bear

in whloh pna r 18mledunder t mmta8pro~ed and le$%l obli

ot to sxeeed i1rte.n (16) year& e of refunding all tlw **outstand debtadmss**  **of** the G@wral l!'wd

It 18 the opinion of **this dePertment**  thati the bond8 6otaght to be issuedunder authorityof the propolrod sasabment would be valid and lag%2 obLlgetion8of 8uoh OmRtjr,Honorable **R. -Ott**  **ldorse, IQne**  14, 1939, page #I?

but o&g to the oxtent that same are issued and exohsnaed for legal aad ralld outs~dlng WWrant indebtedness, 

### ln suah mamier aslbnor provided by general law. The proposed amendment oeeks only to ahange the constltntlosal provlslonswith rererenoe tc the levy or taxes lssofaras same arreots Red River County,and we do not **think** it la anywise alters the generallaws sppertalnlngto the lsmanoe of fundlog or refusdlag**bonds.** Aooordlnglf,we are of the opinion that the flegallty of the wimrtmts sought to be runaedmust be determined betore the Attornoy Qaaw82 oould properly approve the bonds to be issued la liea o? and in erahangsfor suchb&standing warrant lnd8btsdness. The resolution,clearly,does not undertake to vaLidate all warrant indebtedness now outstandingagalsst the General l%M or Bed River County.

Trustlng'thatthis satisfaotorily ass-8 $our questloa,we are **Very** truly yotirs **ATTOIGIEY**GENERAL OB'TUAS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.45

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
              INTERNET PROTOCOL TELEPHONE SERVICE PARTICIPATION AND
                               PROMOTION AGREEMENT


         This First Amendment is made as of the 31st day of March, 2000, between
and Priceline Long Distance, LLC ("Priceline"), with offices at 800 Connecticut
Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut 06854, and Net2Phone, Inc. ("Net2Phone") with
offices at 171 Main Street, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601.

         WHEREAS, the Priceline and Net2Phone entered into a Internet Protocol
Telephone Service Participation and Promotion Agreement dated March 31, 2000
(the "Participation Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties now desire to memoralize their mutual
understanding to amend the Participation Agreement as set forth herein.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1.       The Participation Agreement is hereby amended by deleting
                  Schedule 5.4 thereto and replacing it in its entirety with
                  Replacement Schedule 5.4 attached hereto as Exhibit A.

         2.       Priceline acknowledges receipt of the [****] required under
                  Replacement Schedule 5.4 to be paid on the Soft Launch Date.

         In all other respects the terms the Participation Agreement shall
remain unchanged.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this First
Amendment as of the day and year first above written.



PRICELINE LONG DISTANCE, LLC                NET2PHONE, INC.



By:/s/ Ted Vagelos                          By:/s/ Ilan Slasky
       Name:    Ted Vagelos                        Name:   Ilan Slasky
       Title:   President                          Title:  Chief Executive
                                                           Officer
<PAGE>   2
         EXHIBIT A


         REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE 5.4 TELECOM DCS PREFERRED PROVIDER STATUS
         COMPENSATION



                  As consideration for Net2Phone Preferred Provider Status in
the Telecom DCS in accordance with this Agreement, Net2Phone shall pay to
Priceline [****], payable in the following manner;

         (i)      [****] on the Soft Launch Date of the Telecom DCS;

         (ii)     [****] on each of the 90th, 180th and 279th day following the
                  Soft Launch Date.

         (iii)    [****] on the first anniversary of the Soft Launch Date;

         (iv)     [****] on each of the 90th, 180th and 270th day following the
                  Soft Launch Date;

         (v)      [****] on the second anniversary of the Soft Launch Date; and

         (vi)     [****] on each of the 90th, 180th and 270th day following the
                  second anniversary of the Soft Launch Date.


                                       2
#### Henry Behrman, Surv’r, Resp't, v. Fred’k C. Linde *et al.,*App’lts.

*Adolph L. Sanger,*for resp’t; *Edward S. Clinch*for app’lts.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 23 N. Y. State Rep., 490.
#### Oneida National Bank, Appellant, *v.*Edward H. Stokes et al., Respondents.

(Argued May 21, 1872

decided May 28, 1872.)

*G. S. P. Stillman*and *R. W. Peohha/rn, Jr.,*for the appellant.

*Edmond Wetmore*and *B. E. Derwmg*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm. No opinion.

Judgment affirmed with costs.
#### Louis B. Hasbrouck, Assignee, etc., of Richard D. Young, v. Emma B. Young.

There is no authority for a motion such as this. Motion denied.