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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 97-10154

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFRED PETER HARMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3-96-CR-280-R

_________________________________________________________________

January 7, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The appellant, Alfred Peter Harms, appeals his sentence for

conspiracy to export and divert goods to Iran from the United

States. He argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and

voluntary, that the government breached the plea agreement, and

that the district court erred: 1) in refusing to give him a 3-point

adjustment for failing to complete the offense pursuant to U.S.

Sentencing Guideline § 2X1.1(b)(2); and 2) in imposing a four-level

upward adjustment for a leadership role in the offense.
-2-

Harms has waived his right to appeal his sentence on the

grounds raised with the exception of his claim that the government

breached his plea agreement. See United States v. Portillo, 18

F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994).

Harms’s plea agreement informed him that he was waiving the

right to appeal his sentence on any ground. We may review Harms’s

claim that the government breached his plea agreement because Harms

challenges the government’s conduct under the plea agreement, not

directly attacking his sentence. Harms argues that since the

government agreed not to contest a three-level adjustment of his

sentence, it violated the plea agreement when, by filing no

objections, it adopted the Presentence Report (“PSR”), which

indicated that such an adjustment was inapplicable. Because there

is no indication that the government intended to contest Harms’s

adjustment by adopting the PSR, it did not breach Harms’s plea

agreement. See United States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1301 (5th

Cir. 1994).

A F F I R M E D.
1

4853-6742-9528v.1 013229.00016

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

In re:

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC.,

Debtor.

§

§

§

§

§ 

Case No. 22-31641-mvl7

(Chapter 7)

SCOTT M. SEIDEL, TRUSTEE, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES FRINZI, et al., 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

Adv. No. 23-03036-mvl

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL

Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Continue Hearing on Motion to Compel (the 

“Motion”), filed by plaintiffs Scott Seidel, as chapter 7 trustee for Goodman Networks, Inc., 

GNET ATC, LLC, and Multiband Field Services, Inc., along with defendants James Frinzi, 

Multiband Global Resources, LLC, and the Frinzi Family Trust. Having considered the relief 

United States Bankruptcy Judge

______________________________________________________________________

Signed December 20, 2023

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 23-03036-mvl Doc 43 Filed 12/20/23 Entered 12/20/23 14:42:03 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

4853-6742-9528v.1 013229.00016

requested in the Motion, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and the hearing 

on the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Production from Defendant Multiband Global 

Resources, LLC (Dkt. No. 22) is continued to January 23, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.

### End of Order ###

Case 23-03036-mvl Doc 43 Filed 12/20/23 Entered 12/20/23 14:42:03 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 1 3, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1674 1
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 22 70 6 C V-DLG KEVIN HARDISON, Plaintiff-A ppellee,
ve rs us SE CRE TA RY OFVE TE RAN S A FFA IRS, J i m Ni c h o l s o n , a s S e c r e t a r y, D ep artm en t of

V et er an s A ff

ai rs , D ef en da nt- A ppe lla nt.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S out he rn D istri ct

of F lor ida (D ec em be r 13, 200 5) Before DU BIN A a nd KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and ST ROM *, D istrict Judg e.

____________________ *Honora ble Ly le E. Strom, United States District J udg e for the District of Ne braska , sitti ng by desig nation.2

PE R CU RIA M: In thi s appe al , the S ec re taryof the D ep artm en t of

V et er an s A ff

ai rs appe al s the dis tr ic t c our t’ s gr an t of sum m ary j udgmen t r eq uir ing the S ec re taryto dis cl ose
ce rt ai n do cu m en ts, or

portio ns the re of, to ap pe lle e K ev in H ar dis on p ur sua nt t o th e Free dom of Inform ation Act (“ FO IA ”), 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a). For the r easons that fo llo w , w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c our t’ s gr an t of sum m ary j udgmen t. W e re view a district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent in a FO IA case de
novo . O ffi ce of the Ca

pit al Coll ate ral

Co unse l, N. R eg ion of Fla. v . D ep ’t of Justice , 331 F. 3d 79 9, 802 (11th Cir. 2003). T he F O IAe xe m

pti on a t i ssu e in this appe al , E xe m pti on 6 , e xc lud es f

ro m FO IAr eq ue sts “ pe rs onne l a nd m ed ic al f ile s a nd s imilar fi le s th e dis cl osur e of which w ould constitu te a cle arly unwarr anted invasio n of personal privacy .” 5 U. S. C. § 552 (b)(6). A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e part ie s’ br ie fs a nd h av ing the be ne fi t of or al a rg um en t, w e co nc lud e tha t t he dis tr ic t c our t e rr ed in fi ndi ng tha t t he fo llo w ing pe rs ona l i nf

or m at ion w as not

pr ote ct ed und er

E xe m pti on 6 : (1 ) the da te s of

birth, da te s of

m ar ri ag es , a nd s pous es ’ na m es ; (2 ) the r es ide nts ’ pe rf

or m an ce e va lua tio ns;3

(3 ) the r es ide nts ’ ide nti tie s, w hic h are inc lud ed in the a ct ivi ty log a nd l og
summ ar ie s; a nd (4 ) the ind ivi dua ls’ pr of

es sio na l ba ck gr ound a nd b iog raphi ca l i nf or m at ion
un rel at ed to do cu m en ti ng an in di vi du al ’s cred en ti al s fo r fed eral em pl oym en t. A cc or din gly , w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c our t’ s gr an t of sum m ary j udgmen t i n fa vor of H ar dis on i nsof

ar a s it r eq uir es the dis cl osur e of inf or m at ion not

a lr ea dy
re le as ed to him

by the V A a nd r em an d th is c as e w ith dir ec tio ns tha t j udgmen t be
en te re d in a cc or da nc e w ith thi s de ci sio n. REVERSED a nd REMANDED.4
### SCWC-15-0000859 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

JUSTIN T. WOLCOTT, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI # I,

Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-15-0000859; CASE NO. 1DAA-15-0004) ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J . )



### Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant Justin T. Wolcott’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on June 30, 2019, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, August 9, 2019. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000859 09-AUG-2019 08:05 AM
**Exhibit 31.1**

**SOUTHERN HERITAGEBANCSHARES, INC.FORM 10-QSBQuarter ended June 30, 2006**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, J. Lee Stewart,certify that:

1)             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-QSB of Southern Heritage Bancshares, Inc.

2)             Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period by this quarterly report;

3)             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements and other financial information included in this quarterlyreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in the quarterly report;

4)             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a)           designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

b)           evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures as of June 30, 2006 (the “Evaluation Date”);

c)           presented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date; and

d)           disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

5)             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing equivalent function):

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

b)           any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 
| /s/ J. Lee Stewart |   |
|--------------------|--------|
| J. Lee Stewart     |
| President          |
| Aug 14, 2006       |

 

----
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 70 Filed 08/21/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 371
Randall MCCOY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-3419

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001038878
<NAME> COMMONWEALTH INCOME & GROWTH FUND II
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:05-cv-00135-L Document 13 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 27
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00135-L Document 13 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 28
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40581 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. J O S E M A R T IN R A M IR E Z -D E L E O N , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 05- C R - 2160- 1 B ef ore G A R Z A , D E N N IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ederalP u bl i c D efen der app oi n t ed to represent Jo s e M ar t i n R am i rezD e L e o n (R a m ir e z ) h a s m o v e d fo r l e a v e t o w ith d r a w a n d h a s file d a b r ie f in ac c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . R am i rez h as not f i l ed a respon se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of the rec ord an d coun sel ’ s bri ef di scl oses n o n on frivo l ou s is s u e fo r ap p ea l . A ccord i n gly, cou n sel’ s m oti on f or leav e to w i t hdr aw i s G RA N TE D , c o uns e li s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rr e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n, a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40581 Document: 00511027535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
Oscar Crespo RODRIGUEZ, DOC #Y60616, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4638

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 20, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 20, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0070. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH v. EMORY 

UNIVERSITY d/b/a EMORY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

17CV12642
Exhibit 10.2
 EXECUTION VERSION
  
 Re: Employment as President and COO of Las Vegas Sands
  Agreement LVSC Company Annex A
 1. Employment; Term. Board Commencement
Date Initial
Term Renewal Term Term
 2. Base Salary; Benefits.
 Base Salary
  3. Annual Bonus. Bonus Compensation Committee




---



##### 



4. Stock Option Grants.
 Plan Option Options
    5. Termination of Employment.
 provided however
  Exhibit A




---



##### 



6. Licensing and Compliance Requirement. License Nevada Gaming Authorities
 7. Excise Tax Gross-Up.
 Payment Excise Tax Gross-Up Payment Accounting Firm
 provided however




---



##### 



provided however
 8. Legal Fees.
 9. Miscellaneous.
    Proceeding
 10. Section 409A.




---



##### 








---



##### 



Very truly yours,LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.By:
    
    /s/ Sheldon G. AdelsonName:
    
    Sheldon G. AdelsonTitle:
    
    Chairman & CEOLAS VEGAS SANDS, LLCBy:
    
    /s/ Sheldon G. AdelsonName:
    
    Sheldon G. AdelsonTitle:
    
    Chairman & Treasurer
 
 /s/ Michael A. LevenMichael A. LevenDate:
    
    3/11/09
 Signature Page to Leven Employment Letter Agreement




---



##### 



Certain Definitions
 Cause provided however
 Change in Control
 Disability
 Good Reason provided however
 Section 409A
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

Dated: November 14, 2006

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2018408EN.01002901.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/29

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Josef Baumgartner

(Case C-513/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 19(2), first subparagraph - Administrative penalty for an infringement committed in the Member State of the seat of an undertaking imposed by the competent authorities of another Member State in which the infringement was detected))

(2018/C 408/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josef Baumgartner

Other parties: Bundesamt für Güterverkehr, Staatsanwaltschaft Köln

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as directly authorising the competent authorities of a Member State to impose a penalty on an undertaking or a manager of the undertaking for an infringement of that regulation detected in its territory for which no penalty has already been imposed, even if the infringement was committed in the territory of another Member State in which the undertaking has its seat.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Bryant Williams V. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 11

- 00017

- CR & 01

- 11

- 00018

- CR

Trial court case number: 08DC R049851 & 08DCR49852

Trial court: 400th District Court of Fort Bend County

Date motion filed: September 6, 2012

Party filing motion: Appellant, Bryant Williams

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. K e yes

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.

Date: October 1, 2013
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31680]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service TM.

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: January 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1098 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-873, K2025-874.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31680 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Kenneth Bernard HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3318

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 28, 2019]

Affirmed.
Curtis Lee JONES III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3237

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 3, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert R. Falconi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of Precision Auto Care, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Precision Auto Care, Inc.

|Signature                             |  | Title                                                                                         |  | Date              
|------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------
|                                      |  |                                                                                               |  |                   
|/s/ROBERT R. FALCONIRobert R. Falconi |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer (Principal Financial Accounting Officer) |  | September 25, 2003

---

QuickLinks