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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50169

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEPHEN PROVENCIO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CV-487

USDC No. 1:03-CR-70-3

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Stephen Provencio, federal inmate # 28915-180, appeals the denial of his

motion for 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief, in which he challenged his guilty plea

conviction for possession with intent to distribute 3, 4-

methylenedioxymethamphetamine. The district court granted a certificate of

appealability (COA) on whether United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
No. 05-50169

2

applied retroactively to Provencio’s § 2255 motion. The Government moves for

summary affirmance in lieu of filing a brief or for an extension of time to file an

appellate brief should the court deny its motion for summary affirmance.

Booker does not apply retroactively to Provencio’s § 2255 motion. See

United States v. Gentry, 432 F.3d 600, 604-05 (5th Cir. 2005). Provencio’s

argument that the district court violated his due process rights when it denied

him a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility is outside the scope

of the district court’s grant of a COA, and this court has already denied a COA

on this issue. See Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151 (5th Cir. 1997).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED; the Government’s motion for an

extension of time to file an appellate brief is DENIED.
G.M., the mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2398

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 10, 2018]

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Fourth District, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum of the Department of Children and Families, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

**ON CONFESSION OF ERROR**

Per Curiam.

G.M., the mother, appeals an order requiring her to submit to a psychological evaluation as part of her case plan. The order does not contain the requisite findings that the mother's mental health was "in controversy" and that "good cause" was shown, *see* § 39.407(15) Fla. Stat. (2018) ; Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.250(b), nor does the record support such a finding, *see**Wade v. Wade* , 124 So.3d 369, 374-75 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ; *Gasparino v. Murphy* , 352 So.2d 933, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We accept the state's concession of error and reverse and remand for the trial court to strike the psychological evaluation from the mother's case plan in the disposition order.

*Reversed and remanded with instructions.*

Gross, Taylor, and Levine, JJ., concur.
Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on

appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the EMRB's decision. See Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 36, 302 P.3d 1108, 1112 (2013) (providing that this court, like the district court, gives considerable deference to the EMRB's rulings and will affirm the EMRB's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence that "a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion"). While appellant argues that Clark County violated the collective bargaining agreement's definition of "continuous service" in calculating his seniority, he does not address the fact that Clark County and SEIU bargained for and agreed to layoff guidelines supplementing the collective bargaining agreement, which provided that an employee who voluntarily transfers to another department will have his or her seniority calculated from the date he or she began working for the new department. Substantial evidence supports the EMRB's conclusion that Clark County did not violate the collective bargaining agreement and supplemental layoff guidelines when it calculated appellant's seniority from the date he started with the Department of Development Services.

Further, substantial evidence supports the EMRB's decision that the County rebutted appellant's prima facie case for age discrimination because he was laid off as a result of an application of reverse seniority. See Apeceche v. White Pine Cnty., 96 Nev. 723, 726-27, 615 P.2d 975, 977-78 (1980) (providing that once a prima facie case for discrimination is established, the employer has the burden to demonstrate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action). Lastly, substantial evidence supports the EMRB's conclusion that SEIU fairly represented appellant even though it did not file a grievance on his behalf

SUPREME COURT OF 2 NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4(eD

# CLut
Cherry , J. because SEIU made a good faith determination that the grievance lacked
merit. 

### See Weiner v. Beatty, 121 Nev. 243, 249, 116 P.3d 829, 833 (2005) (requiring a union representing a union member to act in good faith). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

J. Parraguirre

Douglas 

### t-t-9 incA J.

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge Salvatore C. Gugino, Settlement Judge Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders Urban Law Firm Attorney General/Las Vegas Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division Eighth District Court Clerk

"While it appears that appellant takes issue with the County's designation of employees without engineering licenses as engineers, whether the County violated NRS 625.520 was not properly before the EMRB, and thus, this issue is not properly before this court.

SUPREME COURT OF 3 NEVADA

(0) 1947A
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 1 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 2 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 3 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 4 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 5 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 6 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 7 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 8 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 9 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 10 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 11 of 12
Case 21-18481-MAM Doc 19 Filed 02/21/22 Page 12 of 12
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Blair J. Merriam, certify that:1. I have reviewed	this Quarterly Reporton Form 10-QSB of Platina Energy Group, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: 8/20/2007            /s/ Blair J. Merriam         Blair J. Merriam    Chief Executive Officer, President						and Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3815

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dustin Thomas Swanda, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2010

Filed: July 28, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a waiver of his right to appeal,

Dustin Swanda pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute in excess of 50 grams of

actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846.

The district court1

 sentenced Swanda to 151 months in prison and 5 years of

supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.
We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Swanda’s appeal falls

within the scope of the waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and

voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver would not constitute a miscarriage of

justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of

waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily,

and no miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district court can ensure

plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to question defendant

properly about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal); see also

United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the appeal waiver. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we dismiss the 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 Quarterly Report of Tabatha V, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending March 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, John Ballard, President 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 requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
> Act of 1934; and
> 
> 
> 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/John Ballard



 John Ballard,

 President and Chief Financial Officer

May 13, 2005
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 3.1

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                           HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

     Pursuant  to  RCW  23B.06.020(4)  and 23B.10.060, the following Articles of
Amendment  are  executed  by  the  undersigned,  a  Washington  corporation:

     1.     The  name  of  the  corporation  is HiEnergy Technologies, Inc. (the
"Corporation").

     2.     Effective  upon  filing  of  these  Articles  of  Amendment with the
Secretary  of  State  of  Washington,  the  Articles  of  Incorporation  of  the
Corporation  are  amended  to create a Series A Convertible Preferred Stock with
terms  as  set  forth  in  the  attached  Exhibit  A.

     3.     The  amendment  to  the  Articles  of  Incorporation  was adopted by
resolution  of  the  Board  of  Directors of the Corporation without shareholder
approval  on  August  11,  2002.  Shareholder  action  was  not  required.

     These  Articles  of  Amendment  are executed by the Corporation by its duly
authorized  officer.

     DATED: August  12, 2002
                   ---

                                   HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                                   By     /s/ Barry Alter
                                          ---------------
                                          Barry Alter

                                   Its    CEO and President
                                          -----------------



<PAGE>
| 1.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities 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. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Signatures                          |   | Title                                                                          |   | Date                 |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------|
|                                |   |                                                                           |   |                 |
| /s/ Chong Him LauChong      Him Lau |   | Chief      Financial OfficerPrincipal      Accounting OfficerSecretaryDirector |   | August      13, 2010 |

----
# C_2020437EN.01001401.xml

| 18.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10045 — Eurazeo/IK Investment Partners/Questel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 437/03)

On 11 December 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M10045. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M10045. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Opinion filed August 13, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

___________

No. 11-09-00019-CR

__________

 JONATHAN S. GRAY, Appellant

V.

 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

 Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1024754D

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. We dismiss the appeal.

Jonathan S. Gray originally entered a plea of guilty to the fraudulent possession of Xanax,

a controlled substance or prescription. The trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed

appellant on community supervision for three years. A fine of $300 was also imposed. At the

hearing on the State’s second motion to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas to three of the State’s

allegations. The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his
2

community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and assessed his

punishment at confinement for seven years.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported

by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable

law and states that she has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant

with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response

to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173

(Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record,

and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise

appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant

that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 66. Black v. State,

217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.). 

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

August 13, 2009

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
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 of Good Buddy's Coffee
Express, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I,
Scott Massey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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/ Scott Massey
------------------------------------
Scott Massey
Chief Executive Officer  and
Chief Financial Officer
January 31, 2007



<PAGE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7803** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LORENZO BUTTS, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Jerome B. Friedman , District Judge. ( 2:00

- cr - 00067

- JBF

- 1 )

Submitted : June 10, 2010 Decided: June 22 , 2010

Before MOTZ and SHEDD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

Affirmed by un published per c uriam opinion
. Lorenzo Butts, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Joseph Evan DePadilla, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Lor enzo Butts , Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (200 6 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the distri ct court. United States v. Butts , No. 2:00

-

cr - 00067

- JBF

- 1 (E.D. Va. Aug 14, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED