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

No. 17-50150

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Karla Davis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kurt David Hermansen, Law Office of Kurt David Hermansen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Victorio Perez-Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*486Perez-Romero contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating circumstances in this case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Perez-Romero’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of methamphetamine involved in the offense, *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

                                                                       EXHIBIT 5
                                                                       ---------

                         OPINION AND CONSENT OF COUNSEL
                         ------------------------------

The Directors
Learmonth & Burchett Management Systems plc
1800 West Loop South
9th Floor
Houston
Texas
USA

18 March 1997



Dear Sirs

This opinion is delivered to you in connection with a Registration Statement on
Form S-8 ( the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Commission") under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for
the registration of American Depositary Shares representing up to 8,409,581
ordinary shares of 10p par value per share (the "Shares") in the capital of
Learmonth & Burchett Management Systems plc (the "Company").  The Shares are
issuable under LBMS Executive Option Scheme, the LBMS ESOP Share Option Scheme,
and the LBMS Equity Incentive Scheme (together, the "Plans").

We have acted as English lawyers for the Company.  For purposes of this opinion,
we have assumed:-

     (a) that the options pursuant to which the Shares are issuable have been
         duly granted and exercised in accordance with the rules of the Plan;
         and
     (b) that (as was the case immediately following the Company's annual
         general meeting held on 15 November 1996) there will be, at the time of
         issue of the Shares, sufficient authorised but unissued share capital
         to allot the Shares, that sufficient authority to allot the Shares
         under Section 80 of the Companies Act 1985 (the "Act") has been granted
         to the directors and remains in force and that Section 89 of the Act
         has been disapplied in respect of any allotment of the Shares.

Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that, upon the due passing of
resolutions a duly convened meeting of the board of directors of the Company to
allot and issue the Shares, receipt by the Company of the subscription price
therefor in accordance with the rules of the Plans and the entry of the names of
the allottees of the Shares in the register of members of the Company, the
Shares will have been validly issued and will be fully paid and non-assessable.

This opinion is limited to English law as applied by the English courts as at
the date  of this letter and is given on the basis that it will be governed by
and construed in accordance with English law.
<PAGE>

We hereby consent to your filing this opinion as an Exhibit to the Registration
Statement.  Save as aforesaid, this opinion is addressed to and may be relied on
solely by the addressee.  It may not be regarded as addressed to or relied on by
any other person without our prior written consent.  It is strictly limited to
the matters stated herein and does not extend to, and is not to be read as
extending by implication to, any other matter in connection with the issue of
the Shares or the Registration Statement.

Yours faithfully,


MACFARLANES
Presidential Documents

19343 

Federal Register 

Vol. 87, No. 63 

Friday, April 1, 2022 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of March 30, 2022 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Somalia 

On April 12, 2010, by Executive Order 13536, the President declared a 

national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary 

threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the deterioration of the security situation and the persistence 

of violence in Somalia; acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the 

coast of Somalia, which have been the subject of United Nations Security 

Council resolutions; and violations of the arms embargo imposed by the 

United Nations Security Council. 

On July 20, 2012, the President issued Executive Order 13620 to take additional steps to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive 

Order 13536 in view of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2036 

of February 22, 2012, and Resolution 2002 of July 29, 2011, and to address: 

exports of charcoal from Somalia, which generate significant revenue for 

al-Shabaab; the misappropriation of Somali public assets; and certain acts 

of violence committed against civilians in Somalia, all of which contribute 

to the deterioration of the security situation and the persistence of violence 

in Somalia. 

The situation with respect to Somalia continues to pose an unusual and 

extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United 

States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on April 12, 2010, 

and the measures adopted on that date and on July 20, 2012, to deal 

with that threat, must continue in effect beyond April 12, 2022. Therefore, 

in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 

U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared 

in Executive Order 13536. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC1
19344 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Presidential Documents 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

March 30, 2022. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07103 

Filed 3–31–22; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3395–F2–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC1BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our report dated
September 13, 1996, except as to the poolings of interests with the Acquired
Entities which is as of January 30, 1997, relating to the consolidated financial
statements of PMT Services, Inc., which appears on page 1 of Exhibit 5.1 of the
Current Report on Form 8-K of PMT Services, Inc. filed on April 8, 1997. We also
consent to the application of such report to the Financial Statement Schedule
for the three years ended July 31, 1996 which appears on page 1 of Exhibit 5.2
of such Current Report on Form 8-K when such schedule is read in conjunction
with the financial statements referred to in our report. The audit referred to
in such report also included this schedule. We also consent to the reference to
us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.


/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
    
April 7, 1997
No. 11-1476.

#### Marcinek *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 10.2

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of December 15, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Midland States Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), Midland States Bank, an Illinois banking corporation (the “Bank”) (the Bank and the Company hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Employer”), and Jeffrey Ludwig (“Executive”).

 

RECITALS

 

A.            The Executive is currently employed as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and 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 February 2, 2016 (the “Employment Agreement”).

 

B.            The Chief Executive Officer of the Company has recommended, and the Company’s Compensation Committee has approved, changes to the target Incentive Bonus and long-term incentive bonus percentages for the Executive.

 

C.            Since the date of the Employment Agreement the SEC has requested that all issuer’s subject to the reporting requirements of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 include a provision in the issuer’s employment agreements with respect certain rights of the employee to contact the SEC and other government agencies with respect to possible violations of the federal securities laws.

 

AGREEMENTS

 

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 a new sentence shall be added as follows: “The long-term incentive bonus percentage for the Executive shall be fifty-five percent (55%).”

 

2.              A new Section 8(g) is hereby added to the Employment Agreement as follows:

 

(g)          Nothing contained herein shall impede Executive’s ability to communicate with the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission or other governmental agencies regarding possible federal securities law violations (i) without the Company’s prior approval, and (ii) without having to forfeit or forgo any resulting whistleblower awards.”

 

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 BANCORP, INC. and MIDLAND STATES BANK
    	
 
    	
JEFFREY LUDWIG
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Leon J. Holschbach
    	
 
    	
/s/ Jeffrey   Ludwig
    
	
Name:
    	
Leon J.   Holschbach
    	
 
    	
[Signature]
    
	
Its:
    	
Chief   Executive Officer
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.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-984]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc. has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 23, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 23, 2022.
 ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) requires that all comments be submitted electronically 
                        ( print page 16498)
                        through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov*
                         and follow the online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously available for public view on 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov.*
                         If you have received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.”


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on January 17, 2022, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., 100 GBC Drive, Mailstop 514, Newark, Delaware 19702-2461, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
ScheduleEcgonine
9180
II
 The company plans to produce the listed controlled substance in bulk to be used in the manufacture of DEA exempt products. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. Matthew J. Strait, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-06162 Filed 3-22-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Third Amendment”) is made the
11th day of December, 2017 by and between Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Carlos A. Ruisanchez, an individual (“Executive”), with
respect to the following facts and circumstances: 
 RECITALS 

The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement on October 13, 2014 (the “Original Agreement”), which was
amended by the First Amendment to Employment Agreement on December 16, 2014 and the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement on December 15, 2016 (collectively, with the Original Agreement, the “Employment Agreement”). 

The Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement pursuant to the terms set forth herein. 

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

AMENDMENT 
 1. Effective
as of January 1, 2018, Article 3, Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement (Base Salary) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new Article 3, Section 3.1: 

“3.1 Base Salary. In consideration for Executive’s services hereunder, the Company shall pay Executive an annual base salary
at the rate of Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($950,000) per year effective as of January 1, 2018 through the end of the Term; payable in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll schedule from time to time (less any deductions
required for Social Security, state, federal and local withholding taxes, and any other authorized or mandated similar withholdings).” 

2. Except as modified herein, all other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict
between the terms of the Employment Agreement and this Third Amendment, the terms of this Third Amendment shall apply. No modification may be made to the Employment Agreement or this Third Amendment except in writing and signed by both the Company
and Executive. 
 [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Third Amendment to be duly executed as of
the date first written above. 
  

							
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
				
	 /s/ Carlos A. Ruisanchez
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Anthony M. Sanfilippo

	Carlos A. Ruisanchez	 		 		 	Anthony M. Sanfilippo, Chief Executive Officer
1 The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3933

___________ Bryan Bach, husband; Jennifer * Bach, wife, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Gregory Charles Linnell, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 4, 1999 Filed: July 6, 1999

___________ Before MCMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Bryan and Jennifer Bach appeal the district court’s 1 dismissal of their diversity tort suit as time barred. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the case was transferable to the federal court in Iowa under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because of lack of venue in Minnesota, and that the court did not err in applying the Iowa statute of limitations. See Wisland v. Admiral2

Beverage Corp. , 119 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 1997) (§ 1404(a) transfer requires application of law of transferee court), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1043 (1998). We also find no error in the district court’s conclusion that the Bachs’ amended complaint substituting parties did not relate back to the date of the original complaint under the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3). Dismissal was appropriate for the reasons the district court stated, and an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 11-1329.

#### Strutton *v.*Meade et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1234

STERLING L. SINGLETON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

FRANK RICHARDSON; WARDEN JOYNER; WAYNE BOWMAN,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

SCDC; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of SCDC; ASSOCIATE WARDEN 

SHARP; WARDEN ASSOCIATE TISDALE

Defendants.

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

Molly Hughes Cherry, Magistrate Judge. (9:21-cv-00650-JMC-MHC)

Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1234 Doc: 24 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Elloree Ann Ganes, Evan Michael Sobocinski, 

HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1234 Doc: 24 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Sterling L. Singleton seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders (a) denying 

Singleton’s motion to appoint counsel; and (b) denying Singleton’s five motions to compel 

discovery. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders that 

Singleton seeks to appeal are neither final orders, given that litigation on his remaining 

claims against the remaining Defendants is ongoing, nor are they appealable interlocutory 

or collateral orders. Accordingly, 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1234 Doc: 24 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
Converted by EDGARwiz


EXHIBIT 10.1 




AMENDMENT TO

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF

FORCE PROTECTION VIDEO EQUIPMENT CORP.




THE UNDERSIGNED, being the president of Force Protection Video Equipment Corp. does hereby amend the Articles of Incorporation effective December 8, 2017, as follows:




ARTICLE IV

SHARES




The authorized common stock of this corporation shall be increased to 2,000,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value. And the authorized Series A Preferred Stock shall be increased to 15,000,0000 shares, $0.0001 par value.







I hereby certify that the following was adopted by a majority vote of the shareholders and directors of the corporation on December 8, 2017 and that the number of votes cast was sufficient for approval.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed to and executed this Amendment to Articles of Incorporation on December 8, 2017













/s/Paul Feldman

Paul Feldman, President
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER 

### W ITHDRAWING 

### M EDIATION 

### O RDER

Cause number: 01

- 17

- 00934

- CV

Style: Houston Copperwood Apts., L.P. v. Harris County Appraisal District

Date motion filed: December 29, 2017

Type of Mot ion: Objection to Mediation

Party filing motion: Appellee



### It is ordered that Appellee = s objection to mediation is granted. We withdraw our

Mediation Order dated December 19, 2017.

Judge's signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

X Acting individually Q Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: January 1 2, 2018

* Absent emergency or a statement that the motion is unopposed, must wait ten days before acting on motion except for

motion to extend time to file a brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a).

Note : Single justice may grant or deny any request for relief properly sought by motion, except in a civil case a single justice

should not: (1) act on a petition for an extraordinary writ or (2) dismiss or other wise determine an appeal or a motion

for rehearing. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.4(a).