alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3302

___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee ,

v. Blake Ruel, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
.

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ Submitted: March 6, 2023 Filed: March 9, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Blake Ruel appeals a sentence imposed by the district court 1 after Ruel pleaded guilty to offenses involving drugs and firearms. His counsel moved to withdraw and

1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

reasonableness of the sentence. Ruel moved for new counsel on appeal, stating that he was misled by his counsel during the plea negotiations. As to counsel’s argument, we conclude that Ruel’s sentence was not unreasonable. The court specifically stated that it had considered all of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway , 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). As to Ruel’s pro se argument that counsel was ineffective during the plea negotiations, Ruel did not move to withdraw his plea as involuntary, and we conclude that his challenge to counsel’s performance would be better addressed on collateral review. See United States v. Umanzor , 617 F.3d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez , 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Ruel’s motion for new counsel as moot.

______________________________

-2-
# Official Journal L 209/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 209 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6510 August 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 209

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6510 August 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/938 of 26 July 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 as regards the requirements for aeronautical data catalogue and aeronautical information publication | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/938 of 26 July 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 as regards the requirements for aeronautical data catalogue and aeronautical information publication

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 18, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 950 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-692, K2025-691.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-29903 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Yuichi Iwaki, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 of MediciNova, Inc.; 

 

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

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.    The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a)  designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

 

5.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.01

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         I, Bruce Cleland, the Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company,
Inc. as managing owner of Campbell Alternative Asset Trust, certify that (i) the
Form 10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of Campbell Alternative Asset Trust
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Campbell Alternative Asset
Trust.

                               CAMPBELL ALTERNATIVE ASSET TRUST
                               By: Campbell & Company, Inc., managing owner

                               By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland
                                   -----------------------------
                                   Bruce L. Cleland
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   August 12, 2003

                                       E6
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Robert Nicoletti Family Trust, : Appellant :

:

v. :

:

: No. 1262 C.D. 2015

The School District of Philadelphia :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 2 nd day of March, 2016, the Memorandum Opinion

filed March 2 , 2016, is amended to read:

HONORABL E DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated December 15, 2005 and related
Prospectus of Catuity, Inc. for the registration of 1,048,480 shares of its
common stock and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated
February 26, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Catuity, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2004, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Detroit, Michigan
December 15, 2005
| (1) | The Annual 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 this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                | Company Name |                                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                                                |         |                                      |   |
| Date:     March 13, 2015    | By:          |  /s/ Rudi P. Fronk    |   |
|                                                                |         | Rudi P. Fronk                             |   |
|                                                                |         | Chief Executive Officer                   |   |
|                                                                |         |                                      |   |
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                            AGREE REALTY CORPORATION
             SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005

Agree Realty Corporation; through its Operating Partnership, Agree Limited
Partnership, is the sole member of the following Limited Liability Companies:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUBSIDIARY                            JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION
----------                            ----------------------------
<S>                                   <C>
Agree - Columbia Crossing
  Project, L.L.C.                     Delaware

ACCP Maryland, LLC                    Delaware

Agree - Milestone Center
  Project, L.L.C.                     Delaware

AMCP Germantown, LLC                  Delaware

Ann Arbor Store No 1, LLC             Delaware
Phoenix Drive, LLC                    Delaware
Indianapolis Store No. 16, LLC        Delaware

Boynton Beach Store No. 150, LLC      Delaware
Oklahoma City Store No. 151, L.L.C.   Delaware
Omaha Store No. 166, L.L.C.           Delaware
Tulsa Store No. 135, LLC              Delaware

Tulsa Store No. 264, L.L.C.           Delaware
Mt Pleasant Shopping Center L.L.C.    Michigan
Agree Facility No. 1, L.L.C.          Delaware
ALPSC Associates, LLC                 South Carolina
Agree Bristol & Fenton Project, LLC   Michigan
Agree Realty South-East, LLC          Michigan
AC Realty Company, LLC                Georgia
</TABLE>

Agree Realty Corporation, through its Operating Partnership, Agree Limited
Partnership, owns a 99% interest in the following Limited Liability Company:

Lawrence Store No. 203, L.L.C.        Delaware
May , 2015

Clerk RECEIVED IN

Court of Criminal Appeals COURT OF CRIWAL APPFA'.?

P.O. Box 12308

Austin, Texas 78711 MAY 112015

RE: Motion For Extension of Time

Appeal no. 06-14-00112-CR Abel Acosta, Cleft

Dear Clerk,

Enclosed, please find the Original Motion For Extension of Time. Please

file and bring to the attention of this Court.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated in this matter.

Respectfully,

Rashad Lee #1932553

2101 FM 369 North

Iowa Park, Texas 76367

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

MAY 112015

Abel Acosta, Cierk
Cause No.

RASHAD LEE § IN THE COURT

Petitioner

v. § OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS § CRIMINAL APPEALS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

•'. CCOMES NOW, Rashad Lee, Petitioner in the above style file this Motion

For Extension of Time to file his Petition For Discretionary Review (PDR)

from the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas affirming

his appeal in Cause No. 06-14-00112-CR. The Petitioner's Appeal was affirmed

on the date of April 9, 2015.

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48, the Petitioner has

the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary Review of the Appellate

Court's decision.

Petitioner is currently in an Education Class, in which utilizes his

time that:he should, be using to prepare his PDR Petitioner, therefore,

requiring more time to be needed to adequately prepare the Petition.

•'. The Petitioner requests this Court to Grant him an extension of time

for 60 days in which to properly prepare his petition.

PRAYER

Petitioner pray this Honorable'Court will Grant him 60 days inwhich

to prepare his PDR.

Executed on this day of May, 2015.

1 of 2

Respectfully Submitted,

Rashad Lee #1932553

2101 FM 369 North

Iowa Park, Texas 76367
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Rashad Lee, do hereby certify that the Request For Extension of

Time was mailed to: Clerk, Court of Criminal Appeals, P.O. Box .12308,

Austin, Texas 78711, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on the -day of

May, 2015.

Rashad Lee

2 of 2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY
, Appellant,

v.

KUBICKI DRAPER, LLP
, a law firm, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2889

[ March 20, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Patti Englander H enning , Judge; L.T. Case No. 08 25361 (26)

.

Benjamin J. Biard and Brittany P. Borck of Winget Spadafora Schwartzberg, LLP, Miami, and Frank A. Shepherd and Lesley

- Anne Marks of GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Ch ristopher J. Lynch and Steven K. Hunter of Hunter & Lynch, Coral Gables, for appellee.

O

N A PPELLANT ’ S M OTION F OR C ERTIFICATION
T

O T HE F LORIDA S UPREME C OURT

G ERBER
, C.J

.

By opinion issued January 23, 2019, we affirmed the circuit court’ s final judgment granting the appellee law firm’s motion for summary judgment against the appellant insurer, on the basis that the appellant insurer lacked standing to sue the law firm. Arch Ins. Co. v. Kubicki Draper, LLP

, No. 4D17

- 2889, 2019 WL 318466 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan . 23, 2019). We agree d with the circuit court’s reasoning that the insurer was

not in privity with the law firm , and thus the insurer lacked standing to

sue the law firm. Id. at *1. We further conclude d that the insurer’s suit did not qualify under the privity rule’s two exceptions which our supreme court has recognized. Id

.

The insurer has n ow filed a motion requesting this c ourt to certify the following two questions as questions of great public importance:2 I. Whether an insurer has standing to maintai n a malpractice action against counsel hired to represent its insured where the insurance company has a duty to defend

. II. Whether the unique tripartite relationship between the insurer, insured, and law firm is a limited exception to the strict privity

rule

.

We grant the motion to certify the first proposed certified question. We deny the motion to certify the second proposed certified question, which

we consider to be subsumed with in the first proposed certified question.

Therefore, we certify to our supreme court the following question of great public importance (slightly restated from the proposed question):

WHETHER AN INSURER HAS STANDING TO MAINTAIN A

MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST COUNSEL HIRED TO

REPRESENT THE INSURED WHERE THE INSURER HAS A

DUTY TO DEFEND.

Motion granted in part, denied in part; question of great public importance certified

.

F ORST and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Hector VELEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1844

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 10, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jonathan Greenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Marzuq AL-HAKIM a/k/a Marcus B. Harris, DOC #839504, Appellant, v. WARDEN OF ZEPHYRHILLS C.I.; Randy Surber; Julie L. Jones; Dr. Profit, and Dr. Rohanna, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-377

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         351,682
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  503,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               855,631
<PP&E>                                          60,177
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,771)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,939,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,802,681
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,939,310
<SALES>                                        528,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               528,511
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,257,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (728,933)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (725,933)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (725,933)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.023)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.023)


</TABLE>
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00351

- CR

NATHANIEL ROBERT COL LIER , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017

- 1144

- C2

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due on January 30, 2019 . A first extension of time

of 30 days was granted, and appellant’s brief was due March 1 , 2019 . A second extension

of time of 31 days was granted, and appellant’s brief was due April 1, 2019

. Now, counsel
for appellant has requested an additional 30 days which would make the brief due on
May 1, 2019. This most recent request has pushed the total days to file the brief to 121
days to file a brief that the Rules of Appellate Procedure provide should be filed in 30
days . We cannot, in good conscience, grant counsel four times the amount of timeCollier v. State Page 2

allowed by the rules to file appellant’s brief w here there is no suggestion in the motion
that this case is unusual in any way

. Accordingly, a ppellant’s Third Motion for Exten sion of Time to File Appellant’s
Brief is denied. Appellant’s brief is due May 1, 2019

. If not filed by the deadline set

her ein, the appeal will be abated for a hearing pursuant to Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Motion denied Order issued and filed April 17 , 2019