alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Flako, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4339

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 18, 2017

Decided: January 11, 2018

Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Vasquez-Hernandez (“Hernandez”) pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),' (b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). On appeal, Hernandez argues only that plea counsel was ineffective. We affirm.

It is well established that we do not consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal “[ujnless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record.” *United States v. Faulls,*821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016). To prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Hernandez “must show that counsel’s performance was deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L,Ed.2d 674 (1984). In the plea context, “to satisfy the ‘prejudice’ requirement, [Hernandez] must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” *Hill v. Lockhart,*474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).

Hernandez argues that his privately retained attorney was ineffective in that, pri- or to counseling Hernandez to plead guilty, he failed to discuss with Hernandez either (a) the evidence provided by the Government during discovery, or (b) the strategic options available to Hernandez. But our review of the record revealed no conclusive evidence to support either contention. To the contrary, these claims appear to be belied both by Hernandez’s testimony at *138the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and the information provided at sentencing. Because Hernandez has failed to make a conclusive showing on the face of the record that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient in either regard, Hernandez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised, if at all, in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). *See Faulls,*821 F.3d at 507-08.

Hernandez raises no other assignments of error, and we therefore affirm the criminal judgment. 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*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit 10.8(a)

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                       APPLIED GRAPHICS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
              AMENDED AND RESTATED 1998 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


         WHEREAS, Applied Graphics Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company") adopted the Applied Graphics Technologies, Inc. 1998 Incentive
Compensation Plan effective as of May 27, 1998 (as amended and restated, the
"Plan");

         WHEREAS, Section 16.2 of the Plan provides that, in certain
circumstances, the Board of Directors may amend the Plan at any time;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of May 8, 2000 as
follows:

         1.       Section 7.4 of the Plan is amended and restated in its
                  entirety to read as follows:

                  "7.4 Vesting Date. The Committee shall specify the Vesting
                  Date with respect to each Stock Option in the Award Agreement.
                  The Committee may grant stock options that are Vested, either
                  in whole or in part, on the date of grant. If the Committee
                  fails to specify a Vesting Date in the Award Agreement, such
                  Stock Option shall become exercisable in accordance with the
                  following schedule:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                  ANNIVERSARY OF DATE OF GRANT                      CUMULATIVE
                  ----------------------------                     PERCENT THAT
                                                                       VESTS
                                                                       -----
<S>               <C>                                              <C>
                  LESS THAT 1 YEAR............................          0%
                  On the first anniversary date...............         20%
                  On the second anniversary date..............         40%
                  On the third anniversary date...............         60%
                  On the fourth anniversary date..............         80%
                  On the fifth anniversary date...............        100%
</TABLE>
                  The Vesting of a Stock Option may also be subject to such
                  other terms and conditions as shall be determined by the
                  Committee, including, without limitation, accelerating the
                  Vesting (i) based on individual performance or (ii) if certain
                  performance goals are achieved."

         2.       In all other respects, the Plan is hereby ratified and
                  confirmed.

<PAGE>   2
         3.       Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall
                  have the meanings set forth in the Plan.
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1607 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1607

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1607/2002 of 10 September 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables **

*
Official Journal L 243 , 11/09/2002 P. 0005 - 0006 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1607/2002

of 10 September 2002

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 September 2002.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 September 2002.

For the Commission

J. M. Silva Rodríguez

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.

(2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 10 September 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

>TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]                                      700 W. PALMETTO PARK ROAD
     MCG                                                               SUITE 510
Partners, Inc.                                         BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33433
                                                          TELEPHONE 561.620.9234
    merchant                                              FACSIMILE 561.620.9208
    banking



March 13, 2002


Howard Brummer
President
TL Global, Inc.
7000 W. Palmetto Park Road Suite 501
Boca Raton, Florida 33433

RE:  Office Space

Dear Howard:

         Pursuant to our discussions, TL Global, Inc. hereby agrees to pay MCG
Partners, Inc. $2500 per month effective April 1, 2002 for its continued use of
the MCG offices at 7000 West Palmetto Park Road, Suite 501. This fee shall cover
the use of my office, and reasonable access to the conference room, copy machine
and other office services.

         This arrangement shall be cancelable on 30 days' notice and shall
otherwise terminate at such time as MCG's lease terminates.

Very truly yours,

MCG Partners, Inc.


Neil Swartz, President



Accepted by:
            ---------------------------
             Howard Brummer, President
             TL Global, Inc.
#### Erwin Leonel SOLIS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-70765

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Rosana Cheung, Attorney, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, John D. Williams, Esquire, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Erwin Leonel Solis, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 *556(9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Solis’s untimely motion to reopen where Solis failed to demonstrate materially changed country conditions in Guatemala to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen, *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d 983, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA did not abuse its discretion where petitioner failed to introduce material evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 25 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 25

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              relative to equal rights for women and men.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 26 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

  Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. 
 Boxer, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Daschle, 
  Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Glenn, Mr. 
   Harkin, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
  Johnston, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Murray, 
 Mr. Packwood, Mr. Pell, Mr. Robb, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
   Simon, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Wellstone) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              relative to equal rights for women and men.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied 
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by 
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    ``Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the 
date of ratification.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 763 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 315
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 763

                          [Report No. 104-213]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING 
                     STAR, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 8 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                            January 26, 1996

              Reported by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING 
                     STAR, 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. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106 through 12108 of title 46, United 
States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 
App. 883), the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING 
STAR, hull identification number HA2833700774, and State of Hawaii 
registration number HA8337D.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 315

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 763

                          [Report No. 104-213]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING 
                     STAR, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 26, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
Share Purchase Warrant of Flanagan



 



EXHIBIT 10.4



SHARE PURCHASE WARRANT OF MR. EDWARD LAUGHLIN FLANAGAN



This document is identical to Exhibit 10.3
Share Purchase Warrants of Mr. William Albert Maligie, in its entirety with the exception of the following
terms:


Warrant No. ELF-12/98-001


Date if initial issuance: February 1, 1998


THIS CERTIFIES THAT, for value received, Edward Laughlin Flanagan — (hereinafter
called the “Holder”) of 4478 Garden Brook Drive, Chico, CA 95973 is entitled to
purchase from the Company during the Term of this Warrant at the times provided
for herein, the number of shares of Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share,
of the Company (the “Common Stock”) as specified herein, at the Warrant Price,
payable in the manner specified herein. The exercise of this Warrant shall be
subject to the provisions, limitations and restrictions herein
contained.


SECTION 2. Exercise of Warrant.




	 	 	 
	2.1	 	
Right to Exercise. After the date hereof, the Holder may
exercise this Warrant, in parts
indicated herein or portion thereof to
purchase up to 250,000 shares of Common
Stock subject to adjustment as provided
in Section 5. The Warrant Price shall
be US$0.75 per share subject to
adjustment as provided in Section 5.



Added Section 2.2



	 	 	 
	2.2	 	
Vesting Period. The vesting period shall be varying for
each one third of the total Share
Purchase Warrants and the number of
shares available for exercise at any time
during the term of this warrant on or
after the date indicated shall be as
follows:





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	i)

ii)

iii)	 	 	
33.33%
33.33%
33.33%
	 	 	83,334 shares

83,333 shares

83,333 shares
	 	February 1,
1999

February 1, 2000

February 1, 2001




1
ARB Home Search Accessibility A-Z Index Contact Us

FACILITY SEARCH ENGINE

Please read the SEARCH HINTS before using the Facility Search Engine

Fill out any or all of the fields below to search

Database Year : Air Basin :

District : County :

Facility Name : City :

Zip Code :

Facility SIC Code :

Facility ID :

 Exclude Gas Stations, Print Shops, Autobody Shops and Dry Cleaners.

Show Criteria Pollutant data

Show Toxic data

Show Facilities that emit : or CAS Id

ARB Homepage

A department of the California Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board: Facility Search Form https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php

1 of 1 9/13/2016 7:53 AM
# EUR-Lex - 32003R2112 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R2112

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2112/2003 of 1 December 2003 correcting Regulation (EC) No 1334/2003 amending the conditions for authorisation of a number of additives in feedingstuffs belonging to the group trace elements (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 317 , 02/12/2003 P. 0022 - 0023 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2112/2003

of 1 December 2003

correcting Regulation (EC) No 1334/2003 amending the conditions for authorisation of a number of additives in feedingstuffs belonging to the group trace elements

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs(1), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002(2) and in particular Articles 3, 9d and 9e thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1334/2003(3) contains one clerical error which needs to be corrected.

(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2003 is amended as provided for in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 December 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 265, 3.10.2002, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 187, 26.7.2003, p. 11.

ANNEX

The list of additives under the heading "E1 Iron-Fe" is replaced by the following:

">TABLE>"
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

**In connection with this quarterly report of MLTrend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (this “Report”), I,**Robert D. Ollwerther, Chief Executive Officer and President of Merrill Lynch AlternativeInvestments LLC, the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14,2007
| By                                    | /s/ ROBERT D. OLLWERTHER |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Robert D. Ollwerther                  |                     |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |                     |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |                     |

 

----
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11080

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GREGORIO CANO-MORALES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:07-CR-22-ALL

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gregorio Cano-Morales

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 2, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11080

2

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.