alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1565

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brooke Danielle Beckley

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

Submitted: June 21, 2019

Filed: July 3, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before KELLY, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Brooke Beckley directly appeals after she pleaded guilty in the district court1

to drug and firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal

The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
waiver. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court imposed

a substantively unreasonable sentence.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See

United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity

and applicability of appeal waivers); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92

(8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver should be enforced if appeal falls within

scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement

and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice).

Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the

scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss

this appeal.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of CNB FINANCIAL CORP. (the
“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Charles R.
Valade, acting as principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, hereby certify that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of December 31, 2007.











/s/ Charles R.
Valade


Charles
R. Valade


President


CNB
FINANCIAL CORP.


March 20,
2008
#### State v. Reed

108,823

03/28/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
Exhibit 4.35



 Exhibit 4.35 
  
 Date : 3rd
May, 2003 
  

	 RE : US$37,500,000 Promissory Note (“Note”) to be expired on 3rd May, 2003



  
 Both parties have agreed that the
US$37,500,000 Promissory Note dated November 4, 2002 will be extended for further 6 months until November 3, 2003. The overdue and unpaid Note interest as at 3rd May, 2003 will be subject to a default interest rate. 
  

	 For & on behalf of
 JESPER LIMITED
	 	 	 	 For & on behalf of
 MODERN MIND TECHNOLOGY LTD.

			
	 



	 	 	 	  
  
 

        


	Authorized Signature	 	 	 	Authorized Signature
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: June 18, 2015 106593 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARCUS JACKSON,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: April 30, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ.

__________

John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan

Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County

(Williams, J.), rendered October 22, 2013, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree.

Defendant entered a guilty plea to rape in the third

degree, admitting that he had sexual intercourse with a 15-yearold girl when he was 22 years old. Pursuant to the plea

agreement, he waived his right to appeal and was sentenced to a

two-year prison term to be followed by 10 years of postrelease

supervision. Defendant now appeals.

As an initial matter, the record reflects that defendant's

appeal waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People

v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273,
-2- 106593 

280 [1992]). County Court carefully explained the nature of the

right being waived, including that it was separate and distinct

from the trial-related rights automatically forfeited upon a

guilty plea, ascertained that defendant had discussed it with his

attorney and had no questions about it, and defendant signed a

written waiver of appeal in open court (see People v Bradshaw, 18

NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006];

People v Toback, 125 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d

993 [2015]). The valid appeal waiver precludes defendant's

challenge to the sentence as harsh and excessive (see People v

Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; People v Handly, 122 AD3d 1007, 1008

[2014]).

Defendant's further claims that he was not advised that

there would be mandatory surcharges and that County Court should

have waived them were not raised before that court and, thus, are

not preserved (see People v Young, 81 AD3d 995, 996 [2011], lv

denied 16 NY3d 901 [2011]). In any event, we would have found no

merit to these claims (see People v Hoti, 12 NY3d 742, 743

[2009]; People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45, 47 [2009]). Defendant's

challenge to the indictment as duplicitous was forfeited by his

guilty plea and appeal waiver, unless this constitutes a

jurisdictional defect (see People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600-601

[1978]; People v Motz, 52 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2008], lv denied 11

NY3d 791 [2008]). The claim of duplicity (see People v Alonzo,

16 NY3d 267, 269 [2011]) does not constitute a jurisdictional

defect (see People v Vega, 268 AD2d 686, 687 [2000], lv denied 95

NY2d 839 [2000]) and, thus, this claim was forfeited (see People

v Cole, 118 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2014]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ., concur.
-3- 106593 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### State v. Brown

107,049

08/29/13

Denied

Unpublished
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Nebraska Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Nebraska Natural Gas Price Sold to Electric Power Consumers  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2.86   | 2.40   | 2.80  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.60   | 4.29   | 4.17   | 5.63   | 6.51   | 8.16   | 7.31   | 8.97   | W      | W     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | W      | 5.74   | 3.93   | 4.96   | 5.84   | 3.97   | 3.31   | 4.23   | 3.77   | 3.16  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2.52   | 13.39  | 8.35   | 3.34   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019379EN.01000701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/7 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9540 — Permira/Cambrex)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 379/06)

1.

On 4 November 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019379EN.01000701-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Permira Holdings Limited (United Kingdom), and |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Cambrex Corporation (United States of America). |

Permira Holdings Limited acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Cambrex Corporation.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Permira Holdings Limited: long-term private equity investments in companies active in a wide variety of sectors, including in the area of pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing where Permira controls two companies, Lyophilization Services of New England (LSNE) and Quotient Sciences, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Cambrex Corporation: pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing providing drug substance, drug product, and analytical services. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019379EN.01000701-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9540 — Permira/Cambrex

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019379EN.01000701-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019379EN.01000701-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
will not issue when the petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate

remedy at law, NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, and we have consistently held that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Having considered the petition and appendix, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Specifically, petitioners have an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Hansen Rasmussen, LLC Cottle Law Firm Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2
No. 12-5730.

#### Muhammad *v.*Cappellini et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                        
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|West Virginia Natural Gas Deliveries to Electric Power Consumers  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|West Virginia Natural Gas Deliveries to Electric Power Consumers  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 569    | 515    | 499   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 516    | 2,620  | 1,885  | 2,084  | 1,406  | 2,287  | 3,664  | 3,849  | 1,889  | 1,109 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,480  | 2,579  | 2,361  | 2,840  | 6,711  | 13,221 | 10,167 | 10,426 | 10,725 | 16,451
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 21,277 | 19,543 | 17,677 | 31,073 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
From: "Irvine, Robert (DEQ)" <IRVINER@michigan.gov> To: Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Cc: "Maupin, Mary (DEQ)" <MAUPINM@michigan.gov>, Andy Chang/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 07/09/2012 01:21 PM Subject: PM2.5 data confirmation for iSIP

Doug:

We have reviewed our ambient monitoring data for PM2.5. We confirm that observed 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations have always been below 140 ug/m3 at all locations in Michigan. Consistent with EPA's guidance, "Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)( 1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS)" September 25, 2009, areas that have not observed PM2.5 concentrations above EPA's intended significant harm level may opt to address emergency episode requirements by attesting that concentrations have always been below 140 ug/m3. As a result, Michigan satisfies requirements for emergency episode planning without contingency plan requirements specifically tailored to PM2.5.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9270]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-145-001]


Crossroads Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

April 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on April 1, 1997, Crossroads Pipeline Company 
(Crossroads) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the 
tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, with an effective 
date of June 1, 1997.
    Crossroads asserts that this filing is being made to comply with 
the requirements of the Commission's Order Nos. 587, 587-A, and 587-B 
issued in Docket No. RM96-1-000, and the Commission's March 6, 1997 
letter order on Crossroads' December 2, 1996 compliance filing.
    Crossroads states that the purpose of its filing is to reflect 
changes to its tariff to implement the standards approved by the Gas 
Industry Standards Board and incorporated into the Commission's 
regulations.
    Crossroads states further that copies of the filing were served on 
its current firm and interruptible customers and interested state 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with the Commission's rules and 
regulations 18 CFR Sections 385.211 and 385.214. All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before April 21, 1997. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of Crossroads' filing are on file 
with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the 
Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9270 Filed 4-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|Natural Gas Citygate Price in West Virginia  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|Natural Gas Citygate Price in West Virginia  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 4.26   | 4.18   | 3.61   | 3.20   | 3.43   | 3.75  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 3.54   | 3.58   | 3.23   | 3.39   | 3.26   | 2.85   | 3.36   | 3.17   | 3.17   | 3.40  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 3.75   | 4.88   | 4.28   | 5.69   | 7.04   | 9.69   | 8.93   | 8.62   | 10.32  | 7.06  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6.31   | 5.91   | 4.99   | 4.65   | 5.07   | 4.00   | 3.46   | 3.86   | 3.86   | 3.71  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3.20   | 4.22   | 6.25   | NA     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
**Exhibit 10.29**

Current Director Compensation Arrangements 

Mr. Gerald Birnbach, the only director employed bythe Company, is paid a fee of $500 per regular meeting attended. Non-employee directors are paid $2,500 per regular meeting attended. No fees are paid to directors for attending special meetings of the Board or for their service on Board committees.The Chairman of the Audit Committee is paid an annual fee of $10,000. Directors are also eligible to receive stock option grants under the Company’s 2003 Stock Option and Incentive Plan. In addition, each of Directors Harvey I. Ptashek, CharlesT. Rosen, Keith J. Rowe, Silver J. Silver and Gerald O. Woodlief are participants in the Executive Medical Reimbursement Plan, which provides reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs incurred under the Company’s general health insurance plan.
No. 11-1200.

#### Hepting et al. *v.*AT&T Corp. et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.