alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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. 01-30437

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR WILLARD JOHNSON, III,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-3772-S

99-CR-374-ALL-S

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

June 21, 2002

Before SMITH, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Willard Johnson argues that the district court erred in dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion and in failing to grant himan out-of-time direct appeal. Johnson argues that his counsel failed

to file a direct appeal despite his request that counsel do so. 

“[A] lawyer who disregards specific instructionsfrom the defendant to file a notice of appeal

acts in a manner that is professionally unreasonable.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477

(2000). If counsel fails to file a requested appeal, a defendant is entitled to a new appeal without
 

-2-

showing that his appeal would have merit because he reasonably relied on counsel to file the

necessary notice. Id. 

The district court rejected Johnson’s allegation that he had instructed his counsel to file an

appeal. However, the record does not contain an affidavit from counsel or any other independent

evidence showing that Johnson did not make such a request or clarifying the nature of anydiscussions

Johnson had with his counsel. Thus, the record does not conclusively show that Johnson was not

entitled to an out-of-time appeal. 

The district court abused its discretion in denying Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motionwithout

obtaining evidence on whether Johnson was deprived of his right to a direct appeal as a result of the

ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Bartholomew, 974 F.2d 39, 41 (5thCir. 1992).

The dismissal ofthe motion is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court to obtain

the evidence necessary to resolve this issue. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                             162
<SECURITIES>                                       318
<RECEIVABLES>                                       88
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        154
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   826
<PP&E>                                            8164
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              333
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                         195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       868
<SALES>                                            611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   611
<CGS>                                              516
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (251)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (212)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (212)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5169 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1310 Highway 64 NW. in Ramsey, Indiana, as the ‘‘Wilfred Edward 

‘Cousin Willie’ Sieg, Sr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2006 

Mr. SODREL (for himself, Ms. CARSON, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. BUYER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. CHOCOLA, Mr. HOSTETTLER, and Mr. 

SOUDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1310 Highway 64 NW. in Ramsey, Indiana, 

as the ‘‘Wilfred Edward ‘Cousin Willie’ Sieg, Sr. Post 

Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. WILFRED EDWARD ‘‘COUSIN WILLIE’’ SIEG, SR. 

4 POST OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1310 Highway 64 NW. in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5169 IH 

1 Ramsey, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Wilfred Edward ‘Cousin Willie’ Sieg, Sr. Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Wilfred Edward 

7 ‘Cousin Willie’ Sieg, Sr. Post Office’’. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5326 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the amount of educational 

assistance available to members of the reserve components called or 

ordered to active service for more than nine consecutive months or 

more than 18 total months during any 24-month period. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2006 

Mrs. EMERSON (for herself and Mr. FILNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the 

amount of educational assistance available to members 

of the reserve components called or ordered to active 

service for more than nine consecutive months or more 

than 18 total months during any 24-month period. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5326 IH

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF EDUCATIONAL AS2 SISTANCE PROVIDED TO CERTAIN MEMBERS 

3 OF RESERVE COMPONENTS CALLED OR OR4 DERED TO ACTIVE SERVICE. 

5 (a) INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.—Para6 graph (4) of section 16162(c) of title 10, United States 

7 Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (A)— 

9 (A) by striking ‘‘one continuous year’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘nine continuous months’’; and 

11 (B) by inserting ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon 

12 at the end; 

13 (2) in subparagraph (B)— 

14 (A) by striking ‘‘60 percent’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘100 percent’’; and 

16 (B) by striking ‘‘one continuous year’’ and 

17 all that follows through the end and inserting 

18 ‘‘nine continuous months or more or 18 non19 continuous months or more during any 24- 

20 month period.’’; and 

21 (3) by striking subparagraph (C). 

22 (b) RATE OF INCREASED EDUCATIONAL ASSIST23 ANCE.—Paragraph (2) of such section is amended by 

24 striking ‘‘title 38 for a member’’ and all that follows 

25 through the end and inserting the following: ‘‘title 38 

26 for— 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5326 IH

1 ‘‘(A) in the case of an allowance provided under 

2 paragraph (4)(A), a member whose entitlement is 

3 based on completion of an obligated period of active 

4 duty of three years; and 

5 ‘‘(B) in the case of an allowance provided under 

6 paragraph (4)(B), a member whose entitlement is 

7 based on completion of an obligated period of active 

8 duty of two years.’’. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 subsections (a) and (b) shall apply with respect to pay11 ments made after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
No. 09-9692.

#### Johnny Bradberry, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1083, 130 S. Ct. 2131,

176 L. Ed. 2d 751,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3258.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 508.
July 30, 19% 

Honorable Robert S. Calvert 

Conmtroller of Public Accounts 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion NO. ~~-677 

Re: Questions relating to 

the transfer of moneys 

to the available school 

fund and the certlflcation required by H.B. 5, 

1st Called Session,56th 

Dear Mr. Calvert: Legislature. 

You have requested an opinion concerning certlficatlon required by House Bill 5, Acts of the 56th legislature, 

First Called Session, 1959, as relating to the transfers of 

moneys to the available school fund. You state in your request thatthe outstandin 

estimated to be $8,311,60 8 

appropriation on August 31, is 

. It Is estimated such amount in 

cash will be in the available school fund and that warrants 

cannot be issued in the current fiscal year. You then ask 

whether in certifying general fund appropriations such sun 

is to be deducted from the cash condition or the anticipated 

revenues for the next biennium. 

In Attorney General's Opinion m-640 (1959), it was 

held that the Comptroller: 

"in certifying It to the House in 

which same originated, should by virtue 

of the mandate of Section &a of Article 

III of the Constitution, take into consideration every element that bears upon 

the amount of funds thatwill be available, 

Including an estimate of the amount of 

funds that will not be expended under the 

appropriations for the present biennium, 

as well as an estimate of the amount of funds 

tha will not e 

propriatlons made for the next biennium." 
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (~~-677) 

In Attorney General's Opinion WW-673 (1959), it 

was held: 

"It follows from what we have said 

that the Comptroller should not for the 

purpose of certification deduct the subject deficit from the cash condition of 

the Treasury on August 31, or from the 

anticipated revenues for the next biennium. Since the sum will represent an 

outstanding and undisbursed approwriation at the end of the current biennium, 

it should be considered as probable disbursements of the succeeding biennium. 

In estimating the total disbursements 

for the ensulng biennium, the Comptroller 

should not include the amount of funds 

appropriated but which he anticipates 

will not be disbursed during the biennium." 

Attorney General's Opinion ~~-673 (!-9591, relating 

to allocations to the Teacher Retirement System is equally 

applicable to your request. You are therefore advised that 

since the sum referred to in your request will represent 

outstanding and undisbursed appropriations at the end of 

the current biennium, it should be considered as probable 

disbursements of the succeeding biennium. 

SuMMARY 

Outstanding and undisbursed appropriations in the available 

school fund at the end,of the 

current biennium should be considered as probable disbursements 

of the succeeding biennium for the 

purpose of making certification. 

Yours very truly, 

JR:rm 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 3 (w-677) 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Jot Hodges, Jr. 

Henry G. Braswell 

Morgan Nesbitt 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Leonard Passmore
No. 09-10037.

#### Stanley R. Siler, Petitioner v. United States.

560 U.S. 901, 130 S. Ct. 3298,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1179,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4154.

May 17, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, *1180113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305, and cases cited therein.

Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 750.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jimmie Ray Johnson, Appellant

No. 06

- 17

- 00214

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

CR1601102 ). Opinion delivere d by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial c ourt

. We further order that the appellant, Jimmie Ray Johnson, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED OCT OBER 17, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Amendment No. 2011-1  to Sunoco, Inc. Senior Executive Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.13.1 
 Exhibit A 
 Resolution No. Res.-01 

SUNOCO, INC. 
 SENIOR EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Amendment No. 2011-1

  

	1.	Section 8.3 is restated as follows effective January 1, 2011: 


“8.3. If a Participant is due an Award for the Performance Year ended December 31, 2010 that exceeds 150% of the
Participant’s Guideline Incentive Award, one-half (50%) of such excess amount automatically shall be deferred into share units in the Sunoco, Inc. Executive Involuntary Deferred Compensation Plan, provided that no deferral shall be made
unless the amount to be deferred pursuant hereto is equal to or greater than $15,000.” 
  

	2.	Section 8.4 is added, as follows, effective January 1, 2011: 


“8.4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Section 8.3 is effective only with respect to the Awards for the
Performance Year ended December 31, 2010, and after all deferrals are paid or forfeited with respect to such Performance Year, such Section 8.3 shall be deleted and of no further force and effect.” 

 

	3.	Section 13.4 is restated as follows effective January 1, 2011: 


“13.4. The Plan shall be effective for the Performance Period beginning on January 1, 2010.”
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 41226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20581]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission For OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Economic Analysis
    Title: Annual Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad Form 
Number(s): BE-11.
    Agency Approval Number: 0608-0053.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection 
without any change in the substance or in the method of collection.
    Burden: 113,200 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 1,550.
    Avg Hours Per Response: 73 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The survey provides a variety of measures of the 
overall operations of U.S. parent companies and their foreign 
affiliates, including total assets, sales, net income, employment and 
employee compensation, research and development expenditures, and 
exports and imports of goods. The survey is a cutoff sample survey that 
covers all foreign affiliates (and their U.S. parent companies) above a 
size-exemption level. The sample data are used to derive universe 
estimates in nonbenchmark years by carrying forward similar data 
reported in the BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment 
Abroad, which is taken every five years. The data are needed to measure 
the size and economic significance of direct investment abroad, measure 
changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. and 
foreign economies.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit institutions.
    Frequency: Annual.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    Legal Authority: Title 22 U.S.C., Sections 3101-3108, as amended.
    OMB Desk Officer: Paul Bugg, (202) 395-3093.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5732, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Paul Bugg, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10201, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: July 28, 1998.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-20581 Filed 7-31-98; 8:45am].
BILLING CODE: 3510-06-P.
Retirement provisions for David J Illingworth



 Exhibit 4 (c) (vii) 
 Dave Illingworth, 
 703 Grove Place 
 Orchid 
 Florida 32963 
 USA 
 10 February 2011 
 Dear Dave, 
 I am writing to confirm to you the details of your retirement arrangements with
Smith & Nephew plc. 
 Notice Period 
 We accept your letter of resignation dated 10 February 2011, indicating your wish to retire on six months’ notice in accordance with the terms of your service contract on 10 August 2011.
You will continue to be paid and receive benefits throughout your notice period. You will resign as a director of Smith & Nephew plc and from any other Group directorships you may hold on 14 April 2011. However, you will continue to be
available to your successor, Olivier Bohuon during this period in an advisory capacity. 
 Bonus for 2011 

At the end of the notice period, the Remuneration Committee intends to pay you a bonus in respect of the period worked in 2011. 

Long Term Incentive Plans 
 You will be
treated as a “good leaver” for the purpose of all long term incentive plans. Broadly speaking this means that all vested options are available for exercise for a period of 6 months following 10 August 2011. All unvested shares and
options will vest pro rata subject to the length of time held on their existing vesting dates, subject to the performance conditions having been met. All shares awarded to you through the Deferred Bonus Plan will vest on 10 August 2011.

 Healthcare Cover 
 You will
be entitled to join the Group’s international healthcare cover programme as a retiree at your own cost. 







 Non-Compete Clause 
 You will be required to observe the terms of the non complete clause in your service contract, which shall apply up to 10 February 2012. 
 Continuing Consultancy Arrangement 
 Following the termination of your employment on
10 August 2011, Smith & Nephew plc will engage you in a consultancy arrangement under which you will continue to provide consultancy and advisory services to your successor, Olivier Bohuon on the basis of 5 days per calendar month for
a fee of $90,000 per quarter up to 10 February 2012. In particular, it is expected that you will offer advice and support relating to the Group’s operations in China. You or Smith & Nephew plc shall be entitled to terminate this
arrangement at any time on 30 days notice. 
 I would like to take this opportunity of thanking you on behalf of the whole Board for your
service to the Company during your tenure as Chief Executive. We are disappointed that you will be leaving us, but fully understand your desire to return to the US with Silvia. You are leaving the Company in great shape for your successor with a
very good set of results for 2010 behind you. 
 Yours sincerely, 

 

			
	By:	 	 /s/ John Buchanan

	Name:	 	Mr John Buchanan
	Title:	 	Chairman

 I agree to accept the terms of this letter

 Dated: 10 February 2011 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Dave Illingworth

	Name:	 	Mr Dave Illingworth
EPA Registration Jacket 

3008-99 
































*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*



















*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*

*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*

















*Commercial/financial information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0931 

_____________________________

EDDIE WASHINGTON,

Appellant,

v.

NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT 

PARTNERS FLORIDA TWO, LLC

d/b/a APPLEBEE’S GRILL AND 

BAR,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

January 19, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROBERTS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Marie A. Mattox and Ashley N. Richardson of Marie A. Mattox, 

P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Richard C. McCrea, Jr., and Cayla M. Page of Greenberg Traurig, 

P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.
CARDIORENTIS AG v. IQVIA LTD. and Iqvia RDS, Inc.

168A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 25, 2019

J. Dickson Phillips, III, Attorney at Law, Jonathan C. Krisko, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Cardiorentis AG.

Charles F. Marshall, III, Attorney at Law, Shepard D. O'Connell, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Iqvia Ltd. and Iqvia RDS, Inc.

*206The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of June 2019 by Plaintiff to admit Catherine E. Stetson Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of June 2019."
Exhibit
32.01A




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




WRITTEN
STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Andre Scholz, the undersigned President
and Chief Executive Officer of Kiwibox.Com, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the
“Report”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof:




1.
            Fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




2.
            That
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




/s/
      Andre ScholzAndre
      ScholzPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer
              (principal
      executive officer)




Dated:
November 10, 2010
No. 09-9549.

#### Jorge W. Cortes-Morales, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1079, 130 S. Ct. 2118,

176 L. Ed. 2d 743,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3361.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.