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

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued January 26, 2010

Decided January 29, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐3269

FREDRICK H. LENOVER,

Petitioner‐Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Indiana,

Terre Haute Division.

No. 2:07‐cv‐00369‐LJM‐JMS

Larry J. McKinney,

Judge.

O R D E R

Fredrick Lenover is a federal prisoner who moved to vacate his sentence under 28

U.S.C. § 2255.   Lenover and four codefendants were convicted of conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine and to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(a)(1); ten additional codefendants entered into plea agreements

with the government.  Lenover was sentenced to 350 months’ imprisonment.  We affirmed the

convictions, United States v. Gray, 410 F.3d 338, 349 (7th Cir. 2005), and Lenover’s sentence,

United States v. Lenover, 182 F. App’x 563, 566 (7th Cir. 2006).

Lenover’s § 2255 motion alleged that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because

he failed to undertake a good‐faith analysis of the case and thus provided unreasonable advice

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐3269 Page 2

that caused Lenoverto reject a plea offer he otherwise would have accepted.  The district court

denied Lenover’s § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.    We issued a

certificate of appealability on the question of whether trial counsel provided ineffective

assistance during the plea negotiations.

Lenover argues on appealthatthe district court erred by denying his § 2255 motion without

holding an evidentiary hearing.  Lenover is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(b) only if he has alleged facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief.  See Sandoval v.

United States, 574 F.3d 847, 850 (7th Cir. 2009).  To prevail on his ineffective‐assistance claim,

Lenover must present (1) allegations that, if proven, demonstrate that counsel’s performance

during plea negotiations was objectively unreasonable, and (2) evidence that the likelihood he

was prejudiced by counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance is better than negligible.

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Julian v. Bartley, 495 F.3d 487, 495, 499–500

(7th Cir. 2007).  “Ineffective‐assistance claims often require an evidentiaryhearing because they

frequently allege facts that the record does not fully disclose.”  Osagiede v. United States, 543

F.3d 399, 408 (7th Cir. 2008).

The government acknowledged at oral argument that it had sent a letter to Lenover’s trial

counsel requesting his take on Lenover’s allegations.  But trial counsel never responded, and

the governmentneverfollowedup.  We believe that hearing from trial counsel would beuseful,

so weVACATEthe judgment andREMANDforthe limitedpurpose of solicitinghis testimony.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36740

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOHN ANTHONY RICHTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 465

Filed: May 14, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Timothy Hansen, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of five years, for attempted strangulation, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

John Anthony Richter entered an Alford1plea to attempted strangulation. I.C. § 18-923. 

In exchange for his plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced 

Richter to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years. 

Richter appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

 

1

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Richter’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
EX-10.(a)




			
	



	  	Exhibit 10(a)

 TO: [PARTICIPANT NAME]  
 PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION 
 STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHTS AWARD AGREEMENT
(SAR-002O) 
 The Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) of Parker-Hannifin
Corporation (the “Company”) has awarded to you the following number of Stock Appreciation Rights (“SARs”) under the Parker-Hannifin Corporation 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and subject to the Parker-Hannifin
Corporation Stock Appreciation Right Terms and Conditions (SAR-002O) (the “Terms and Conditions”): 
  

							
	 Grant Date
	  	 Number of SARs
	  	 Grant Price
	  	 Expiration Date

	[Grant Date]	  	[Number Granted]	  	US $[Grant Price]	  	[Expiration Date] at 4:00 PM Eastern Time

 Each SAR granted under this award entitles you upon exercise to receive the increase in value between the Grant Price and
the fair market value of one share of common stock of the Company, subject to the Terms and Conditions and the Plan. 
 Vesting
Dates. Except as otherwise provided in the Terms and Conditions, while you are an active full-time employee, one-third (1/3) of the SARs will vest and become exercisable on each of the first, second, and third anniversaries of the grant
date. Once SARs become vested and exercisable, you may exercise those SARs at any time prior to the Expiration Date, except as otherwise provided in the Terms and Conditions. Scheduled vesting dates and amounts for this award are viewable by
clicking on the grant date hyperlink on your Stock Appreciation Rights Grant Information page on the Stock Incentive Plan Administrator’s web site. 
 Your Action Items. Please take the following actions: 
  

	•	 	 Before you accept your grant, click on the links below to review the Terms and Conditions and the Plan, which govern this award.



  

	•	 	 Accept the Terms and Conditions and execute this Agreement by clicking on the “Accept” button below. 



 

	•	 	 Inform the Company of any change in address or contact information, as necessary. Refer to the section of the Terms and Conditions titled
“Notification of Change in Personal Data” for instructions on how to provide notification to the Company. 


 Stock Appreciation Right Terms and Conditions (SAR-002O) 
 2003 Stock
Incentive Plan 
 To view the most recent Annual Report, please click here 
 To view the most recent Proxy Statement, please click here 
 To view the 2003 Stock
Incentive Plan Prospectus, please click here
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HARVEY GEAN EMERSON

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 1 5 1

- CR

Appeal from the

422 nd District Court

of Kaufman County, Texas

(TC# 32535

- 422 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time to file the brief

until October 13 , 2015

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

THE APPELLANT ’ S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Lara Elizabeth Bracamonte

, the Appellant ’ s

Attorney

, prepare the Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before October

13 , 2015

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22 nd day of September , 2015

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes , JJ.
<PAGE>

                           CERTIFICATIONS  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  Quarterly  Report  of  The Project Group, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the  undersigned,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 3(a) or 15(d) of
     the  Securities  and  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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

                         /s/ Craig Crawford
                         ______________________________________
                         By:  Craig  Crawford
                         Chief  Executive  Officer/Chief  Financial  Officer
                         May   18,  2003

<PAGE>
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 the Interior

###### National Park Service

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, Sec. 10), that the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission will hold a meeting on Monday, June 1, 2009.

The Commission was established pursuant to Public Law 99-420, Sec. 103. The purpose of the commission is to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, or his designee, on matters relating to the management and development of the park, including but not limited to the acquisition of lands and interests in lands (including conservation easements on islands) and termination of rights of use and occupancy.

The meeting will convene at Schoodic Education and Research Center, Acadia National Park, Winter Harbor, Maine, at 1 p.m., to consider the following agenda:

1. Review and approval of minutes from the meeting held February 2, 2009.

                    2.                     *Committee reports:*

—Land Conservation.

—Park Use.

—Science and Education.

—Historic.

3. Old business.

4. Superintendent's report.

5. Public comments.

6. Proposed agenda for next Commission meeting in September 2009.

The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the Superintendent at least seven days prior to the meeting.

Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Superintendent, Acadia National Park, P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, Maine 04609, tel: (207) 288-3338.

Dated: April 7, 2009.

Sheridan Steele,

Superintendent.

[FR Doc. E9-9200 Filed 4-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-2N-M
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Scott J. Davidson, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Quest Software, Inc.; and 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

Date: August 27, 2009 

/s/ Scott J.Davidson                                                        

Scott J. Davidson,

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF KNOLOGY, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Knology, Inc. (the Company) that, to his knowledge, this Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|Dated: August 7, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Rodger L. Johnson               
|                      |  |  |  | Rodger L. Johnson                   
|                      |  |  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
;Minto Development Corporation 

PO &:t 1(}4(}8 2111 11Nt Avemw, S111r¥ 1111 !i01.4S2.82SI :rt.1/JIJJ 

Pairbmtks, AK 9910UJ4(18 J<airbanks, AK 99701 fox: fl(J7.45U561 

June 20, 2012 

Kevin Adams 

United States Department of Transportation 

c/o Matt Atkinson 

Warbelow's Air Ventures 

3758 University .Avenue South 

Fairbanks. AK 99709 

RE: Enhanced Mail and Passenger Air Taxi Service. to Minto, .Alaska 

Dear Mr. Adams, 

~·)2 '• 

This letter is in support of efforts to expand and enhance the Essential Air Service provided 

by Warbelow's Air Ventures to the community of l'vlinto, Alaska. Continuation of the regular 

scheduled service provided the last two years to the community of Minto is imperative to our 

operations. Warbelow's provides reliable, sate and efficient service to our community. 

We support the planned continuance of the scheduled service with twin engine aircraft 

instead of single engine. We feel that a twin engine plane will provide safer aircraH and 

greater load capacity, both ofYvhich are important considerations tor the MDC shop. Current 

plane size is limited and we would be interested in shipping products ti·om our wood shop 

located at 309 School Street in Minto. 

Thank you for the opportunity to voice our·support for mail and passenger air taxi.servicc ID 

Minto. Alaska. 

Sincerely, 

12: 0 l
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 929

____________ DENNIS SOCHOR , Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee. [March 1, 2018]
PER CURIAM. We hereby affirm the denial of Appellant’s third successive motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. Because the motion was legally insufficient on its face and refuted by the record,

we find that the tr ial court’s failure to hold a case status conference was harmless

error , and that no evidentiary hearing was required. See Marek v. State , 14 So. 3d
985 , 999 (Fla. 2009); Rutherford v. State , 926 So. 2d 1100, 1108 (Fla. 2006). Additionally, the trial cour t did not err by summarily denying his claim based on newly discovered evidence and Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

. Sochor alleges that a recent declaration obtained from Marvin Droste details a- 2

-

confession from Gary Sochor, Appellant’s brother, tha t Gary was actually “more responsible than anyone else” for the murder of Patricia Gifford. However, the
declaration itself is inadmissible because it does not fall within a hearsay exception. See Robinson v. State , 707 So. 2d 688, 691 (Fla. 1998); § 90.804(2),
Fla. Stat

. Accordingly, the declaration from Marvin Droste would not “probably produce an acq uittal on retrial or yield a less severe sentence. ” K ormondy v. State , 154 So. 3d 341, 353 (Fla. 2015). Therefore, the newly discovered evidence clai m was properly denied. See id. Further, the new information obtained from Droste is
not material under the Brady standard. See Strickler v. Green e , 527 U.S. 263, 28 1

- 8 2 (1999). Viewing the declaration by Droste in the context of the entire record,
the content of the impeachment evidence against Gary Sochor does not undermi ne
our confidence

. See Mordenti v. State , 894 So. 2d 161, 172 (Fla. 2004) ( explaining that the materiality prong of Brady is satisfied if “ the re is a reasonable probability
that this evidence ‘ put [s] the whole case in such a different light as to underm ine
confidence in the verdict

. ’ ” (quoting Kyles v. Whit l ey , 514 U. S. 419, 435 (1995) )

. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of relief.
It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J. , and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.- 3

-

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Paul L. Backman, Judge

- Case No. 06198 6CF015270A88810 Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Rachel Day, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Jessica Houston and Jason Kruszka, Staff Attorneys, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Donna M. Perry, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee
---

Exhibit 13.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Monique van Oord, Chief Financial Officer of Linux Gold Corp., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge: 1. The Annual Report on Form 20-F of Linux Gold Corp. for the year ended February 28, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Linux Gold Corp. Richmond, BC Canadaby: /s/ Monique van OordJune 28, 2010Monique van OordChief Financial Officer
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Linux Gold Corp. and will be retained by Linux Gold Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.’s 333-116055, 333-123707 and 333-153017 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-141953 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 12, 2010,relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of inContact, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption ofthe provisions of Accounting Standards Codification 820-10, *Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures*), and our report dated March 12, 2010 relating to the effectiveness of inContact, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting,appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of inContact, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ DELOITTE &TOUCHE LLP 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

March 12, 2010
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTIAN LOZANO,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT and

DIANA LOZANO,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-292

[February 10, 2021]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue; L.T. Case Nos.

56180003043DR and CSE 2001340734.

Christian Lozano, Port St. Lucie, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Toni C. Bernstein, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee

Department of Revenue.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Christian Lozano, appeals pro se the final administrative 

support order rendered by the appellee, the Department of Revenue. The 

appellant’s brief does not raise any issue with merit. Thus, we affirm the 

support order without prejudice for the appellant to seek a modification of 

the final administrative support order as set forth in section 409.2563(12), 

Florida Statutes (2020), or a superseding order in the circuit court 

pursuant to section 409.2563(10)(c), Florida Statutes (2020). See Feliciano 

v. Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enf’t, 305 So. 3d 801, 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2020).

Affirmed without prejudice.

WARNER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3083 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require certain nonresident 

aliens to provide valid immigration documents to claim the refundable 

portion of the child tax credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2012 

Mr. RUBIO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 

certain nonresident aliens to provide valid immigration 

documents to claim the refundable portion of the child 

tax credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Responsible Child Tax 

5 Credit Eligibility Verification Act of 2012’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3083 IS

1 SEC. 2. VALID IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO 

2 CLAIM THE REFUNDABLE PORTION OF THE 

3 CHILD TAX CREDIT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 24 of the 

5 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at 

6 the end the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(5) VALID IMMIGRATION DOCUMENT REQUIRE8 MENTS.—If a taxpayer is an alien, paragraph (1) 

9 shall not apply to such taxpayer for any taxable year 

10 unless the taxpayer attaches to the return of tax for 

11 such taxable year a photocopy of— 

12 ‘‘(A) each page of the taxpayer’s passport, 

13 ‘‘(B) the taxpayer’s nonimmigrant visa, 

14 ‘‘(C) the taxpayer’s employment authoriza15 tion documentation (Form I–766), 

16 ‘‘(D) the taxpayer’s arrival-departure docu17 mentation (Form I–94), and 

18 ‘‘(E) with respect to each qualifying alien 

19 child of the taxpayer— 

20 ‘‘(i) each page of such child’s pass21 port, 

22 ‘‘(ii) such child’s nonimmigrant visa, 

23 and 

24 ‘‘(iii) the arrival-departure docu25 mentation (Form I–94) of such child. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3083 IS

1 Any failure to meet the requirements of this sub2 section shall be treated as a mathematical or clerical 

3 error and assessed according to section 

4 6213(b)(1).’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS