alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MICHAEL BERNS
                                767 THIRD AVENUE
                            NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017

                                                               December 4, 2007

Mr. David Mathewson
1265 Mesa Drive
Fernley, Nevada 89408


Gentlemen:

         For One ($1.00) Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, I
hereby assign and transfer to you warrants to purchase 1,100,000 shares of
common stock of Gold Run Inc. on terms and conditions determined by the Board of
Directors.

                                                               Sincerely,

                                                               /S/ MICHAEL BERNS
                                                               -----------------
                                                               Michael Berns

cc: Gold Run Inc.
<PAGE>

                                   JAMES BERNS
                                767 THIRD AVENUE
                            NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017

                                                               December 4, 2007

Mr. David Mathewson
1265 Mesa Drive
Fernley, Nevada 89408


Gentlemen:

         For One ($1.00) Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, I
hereby assign and transfer to you warrants to purchase 550,000 shares of
common stock of Gold Run Inc. on terms and conditions determined by the Board of
Directors.

                                                               Sincerely,

                                                               /S/ JAMES BERNS
                                                               ---------------
                                                               James Berns

cc: Gold Run Inc.
Rabuith AGUIRRE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1662

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Dustin Scott HAYNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2450

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF A. M., A MINOR 

CHILD,

 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00277-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2015DCM2102)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS Patricia Madrid’s request for an extension of time within which to 

file the Reporter’s Record until October 27, 2016. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE CONSIDERED 

BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Patricia Madrid, Official Court Reporter for the 388th

District Court for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record and forward the same to 

this Court on or before October 27, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18

th day of October, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14783-14785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7165]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 09-18]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 09-18 with attached transmittal, and 
policy justification.

    Dated: March 20, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
201 12th Street South, Ste 203
Arlington, VA 22202-5408
Mar 13 2009.

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515-6501

    Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the reporting requirements of 
Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, we are 
forwarding herewith Transmittal No. 09-18, concerning the Department 
of the Army's proposed Letter(s) of Offer and Acceptance to Mexico 
for defense articles and services estimated to cost $93 million. 
After this letter is delivered to your office, we plan to issue a 
press statement to notify the public of this proposed sale.

Sincerely,

Jeanne L. Farmer,

Acting Director.

Enclosures:
1. Transmittal
2. Policy Justification
Same ltr to:

    House
    Committee on Foreign Affairs
    Committee on Armed Services
    Committee on Appropriations

    Senate
    Committee on Foreign Relations
    Committee on Armed Services
    Committee on Appropriations

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 14784]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01AP09.000


[[Page 14785]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01AP09.001

[FR Doc. E9-7165 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Kayron O. ERVIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5588

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 8, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In this direct criminal appeal, Appellant, Kayron O. Ervin, challenges his judgment and sentences for the crimes of grand theft of $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000, and extortion, raising two points for our review. We affirm on Point I without comment, but our affirmance on Point II merits an explanation.

During its deliberations, the jury submitted a question to the trial court. Appellant *1174claims the trial court's special instruction given in response to the question negated his entire defense to the charge of extortion. We disagree. Under the facts of this case, the trial court's answer was a correct statement of the law regarding extortion. *See**Duan v. State* , 970 So.2d 903, 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Furthermore, we conclude the instruction neither suggested a verdict nor coerced the jury to reach a hasty decision. In sum, Appellant's defense to the charge of extortion remained viable, and he has failed to demonstrate reversible error.

AFFIRMED .

Jay, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Miguel A. BARRIOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3174

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 30, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 27, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41004 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALBERTO HERNANDEZ-LOZANO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-229-1

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alberto Hernandez-Lozano (Hernandez) appeals his conviction and the 41-month sentence that was imposed for his guilty plea to a charge of being found in the United States following removal, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Hernandez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme CourtNo. 04-41004 -2- would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Hernandez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, Hernandez’s conviction is affirmed. Hernandez asserts that his sentence must be vacated because he was sentenced pursuant to mandatory Sentencing Guidelines in violation of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005) . He asserts that the error in his case is structural and is insusceptible to harmless error analysis. Contrary to Hernandez’s contention, we have previously rejected this specific argument. See United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005). Hernandez contends that the Government cannot show that the error that occurred at his sentencing was harmless. The Government concedes that Hernandez preserved his claim of error. We review Hernandez’s challenge to his sentence for harmless error under F ED . R. C RIM . P. 52(a). See Walters , 418 F.3d at 463. Nothing in the record demonstrates and the Government has not shown that the district court would not have imposed a different sentence under advisory Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Garza , 429 F.3d 165, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2005) . Accordingly,No. 04-41004 -3- Hernandez’s sentence is vacated, and his case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED.
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel Birth Defects Genome-Wide Association Study.                    

*Date:*                         April 29, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To provide concept review of proposed concept review.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6680,                         *skandasa@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 24, 2009

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

 [FR Doc. E9-7226 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Second Amendment to 2005 Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.12 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 TARGA RESOURCES INVESTMENTS INC. 
 2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Targa Resources Investments Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted the Targa Resources Investments Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) or the committee appointed by the
Board to administer the Plan may amend the Plan; 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to allow shares of Stock awarded
under the Plan that have been repurchased by the Company to be available again as shares of Stock with respect to which certain Option Awards may be granted; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows effective as of December 7, 2007: 
 1. The
following sentence shall be added to the end of Section 4(a) of the Plan: “Further, if delivery of shares for all or a portion of an Award has been made and such delivered shares have subsequently been repurchased by the Company, then the
shares of Stock covered by such Award, to the extent of such repurchase, shall again be shares of Stock with respect to which Options that do not qualify as incentive stock options within the meaning of Section 422 of the Code may be
granted.” 
 2. The following sentence shall be added to the end of Section 6(a)(i) of the Plan: “Additionally,
notwithstanding the foregoing, when Stock has again become available for an Award of Options that do not qualify as incentive stock options within the meaning of Section 422 of the Code following the repurchase of such Stock by the Company as
provided in Section 4(a) above, the exercise price per share of Stock purchasable under such an Option Award shall be the greater of (A) the price at which the Company repurchased such Stock or (B) the Fair Market Value of a share of
Stock on the date of the Option grant.” 
 3. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings attributable to them
in the Plan. 
 4. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Second Amendment to Targa Resources
Investments Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan to be effective as of December 7, 2007. 
  

			
	TARGA RESOURCES INVESTMENTS INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Rene R. Joyce
	Name:	 	Rene R. Joyce
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 4.3**

[exhibit43formofregistrati001.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati002.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati003.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati004.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati005.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati006.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati007.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati008.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati009.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati010.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati011.jpg]



---

[exhibit43formofregistrati012.jpg]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,277,921
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,874,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                   410,028
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,468,734
<PP&E>                                       4,589,016
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,917,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              74,044,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,297,687
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,427
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,612,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                74,044,283
<SALES>                                     52,050,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,050,523
<CGS>                                       35,597,997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               48,500,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             904,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,974,610
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,227,183
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,747,427
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,747,427
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
30 C.C.P.A. (Patents)

#### ISLAND ROAD BOTTLING CO. v. DRINKMOR BEVERAGE CO.

Patent Appeal No. 4789.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

Nov. 5, 1942.

*130A. D. Caesar and Charles W. Rivise, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Charles R. Allen, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, LENROOT, and JACKSON, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Drink-Mor Beverage Company, named as appellee in this proceeding, has filed a motion to correct diminution of the record, setting forth that a certain Trade-Mark Registration No. 347,478 should be included in the record certified to this Court by the Commissioner of Patents.

It appears that appellant is an applicant for a Trade-Mark Registration of the notation “Mammy’s” used upon non-alcoholic beverages and syrups, etc., used in making the same.

The Drink-Mor Beverage Company filed notice of opposition to such registration alleging that it is the owner of the mark “Ma’s” used upon similar goods; that the marks of the parties are confusingly similar and that its use of the mark “Ma’s” antedated the use by appellant of its mark.

Testimony was taken and upon final hearing the Examiner of Interferences held that the opposer’s notice of opposition should be dismissed for failure to establish damage to itself by the use by appellant of its mark. The examiner -further held that appellant was entitled to the registration of its mark.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Patents affirmed the decision of the examiner holding that opposer’s notice of opposition should be dismissed, but reversed his decision holding that appellant was entitled to the registration applied for. In his decision the Commissioner stated “ * * * it is adjudged ex parte, that applicant is not entitled to the registration for which it has made application.”

Appellant has taken an appeal to this Court from said ex parte decision. The Drink-Mor Beverage Company took no appeal from the holding that its notice of opposition should be dismissed.

Upon the record before us the DrinkMor Beverage Company is not a party to this appeal other than in form. ' The controversy presented to us is solely between appellant and the Commissioner of Patents representing the public, and it should be treated in all respects as an ex parte case with the Solicitor for’ the United States Patent Office appearing to represent the Commissioner of Patents.

It follows from the foregoing that the Drink-Mor Beverage Company is not entitled to make the motion here before us, or appear in any other respect as a party to this appeal.

Therefore the motion for diminution of the record is denied

Denied
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000747675
<NAME> PRESSURE PIPING COMPONENTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                           2,635
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,635
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,636
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                5
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           461
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,636
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    21
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (60)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     39
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 39
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        39
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>