alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUTHER JENKINS, IV, a/k/a Luther Jenkins,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (3:99-cr-00021-MR-1)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 3, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luther Jenkins, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Luther Jenkins, IV, appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006).∗ We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Jenkins, No. 3:99-cr00021-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. June 16, 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

 ∗ The district court’s order also denies other motions filed 

by Jenkins, but Jenkins’ informal brief challenged only the 

denial of the § 3582(c) motion. “The Court will limit its 

review to the issues raised in the informal brief.” 4th Cir. R. 

34(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 2:15 CR 151

)

BRANDY HERO )

O R D E R

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge dated May 13, 2019 (DE # 162), to which the parties have waived any objections

(id.), the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are now ADOPTED.

Defendant is ADJUDGED to have committed the violations of supervised release

described in the October 19, 2018, Petition (DE # 145). Defendant’s term of supervised

release is REVOKED and she is hereby committed to the United States Bureau of

Prisons to serve a term of imprisonment of time served, followed by a 60-day term of

supervised release under the same terms and conditions of her prior supervised release.

As a further term of supervised release, defendant must immediately report to the

Porter Starke Services program, and upon admittance fully participate as a resident in

the Women’s Recovery Program for the duration of the supervised release period. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: May 14, 2019

s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2149 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2149

        To suspend temporarily the duty on Vullcanox 4010 NA/LG.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on Vullcanox 4010 NA/LG.

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

SECTION 1. VULLCANOX 4010 NA/LG.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.06.05      N-Isopropyl-N-      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         phenyl-p-                                                          31/2009
                         phenylenediamine
                         (CAS No. 101-72-
                         4) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2921.51.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Pitts, *et al. v.*Darby, *et al.*

*Bill to Construe Will.*

(Decided June 5, 1913.

62 South. 523.)

*Wills; Execution; Witnesses.*— Where a will, executed by a nonresident, conveys land within this state, it must be attested by the requisite number of witnesses under section 6172, Code 1907, and not being so attested, the will is not operative to pass the title to real estate in this state, and hence, such lands descend under the statute of descent and distribution unaffected by the attempted testamentary devise.

*371Appeal from Lowndes Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. L. D. Gardner.

Bill by P. H. Pitts, as administrator with the will annexed, against Jennie E. Darby and others, to determine whether or not the administrator can sell certain lands under the power contained in the will without an order of court, and, if not, to direct a sale of the land for distribution. Decree for respondents and complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

The will is that of Alex F. Brevard, a resident of North Carolina, who devised certain lands to certain heirs who are made parties complainant with the administrator ; said lands lying and being situate in Alabama. The will was executed in North Carolina and appears to have no subscribing witnesses; but proof is offered by witnesses Avho qualified to so testify that the signature is in the handwriting of Alex F. Brevard. This appears from the certificate of the clerk of the superior court of Lincoln county, N. C., where the Avill seems to have been admitted to probate. The demurrers raise the proposition decided.

Arthur M. Pitts, for appellant.

The expression found in section 6172, Code 1907 “except in cases hereinafter provided for,” includes and embraces noncupative Avills and foreign wills admitted to probate- under our statute.

Partridge & Hobbs, for appellee.

The demurrers Avere properly sustained as the Avill shows on its face that it Avas not such will as passed the title to real estate in Alabama. — Sec. 6172, Code 1907; *Ward v.*Oates, 43 Ala. 515; *Borck v.*Frank, 51 Ala. 85; *Blacksher v. Northrup,*57 South. 743.

*372McCLELLAN, J.

Since the instrument purporting to be a testamentary disposition of lands in this state owned by Alex P. Brevard, a resident of North Carolina, was *not*attested by two witnesses, as required by Code, § 6172, to pass the title to real estate — a fact appearing upon the face of the record authenticated by the superior court of North Carolina, in which the instrument was probated, to the probate court of Lowndes county, Ala., in which the lands lie — the authority of *Blacksher Co. v.*Northrup, 176 Ala. 190, 57 South. 743, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 454, requires the affirmance of the decree sustaining the demurrers to the bill, with the result that the lands in this state descend under our statutes of descent and distribution, not affected by the testamentary instrument referred to before.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Sayre and Somerville, JJ., concur.
[No. 38550-0-I.

Division One.

August 18, 1997.]

#### Ellinor James, *Appellant,*v. The City of Seattle, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-2-16677-6, Carol A. Schapira, J., entered March 29, 1996. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Coleman and Webster, JJ.
#### Desha M. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. BUTLER and S. Rousseau, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15261.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 5, 2011.

Desha M. Carter, Wasco, CA, pro se.

Tiffany R. Hixson, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the Cali*496fornia Attorney General, San Diego, CA, John E. Rittmayer, Esquire, Tiffany R. Hixson, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Jack M. Schuler, Esquire, Schuler and Brown, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *496*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Former California state prisoner Desha M. Carter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment and due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s ruling on a motion to continue, *Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp.,*263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carter’s motions for a continuance because the likely utility of the continuance was low, the continuance would have seriously inconvenienced the court and defendants, and Carter has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the denial. *See United States v. Flynt,*756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir.1985).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.1

 

Compensation of Jeremy B. Ford

 

	
Annual Base   Salary:
    	
$700,000 commencing on April 1, 2015,   subject to increase in the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the   Board of Directors.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Bonus:
    	
Mr. Ford   is entitled to participate in the Hilltop Holdings Inc. 2012 Annual Incentive   Plan.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 VS. 

BRYANT RIOS 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CR-74-RLM

O R D E R 

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations upon a plea of guilty issued on August 7, 2013. Accordingly, 

the court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16), 

ACCEPTS defendant Bryant Rios’ plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant 

guilty of Count 1 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: September 3, 2013 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
EX 10.1.6.2 - S. Cootey amended employment agreement






Exhibit 10.1.6.2




Second Amendment to
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Second Amendment to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into as of the 24th day of February, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Wynn Resorts, Limited (“Employer”) and Stephen Cootey (“Employee”).  Capitalized terms that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement (as defined below).




RECITALS


WHEREAS, Employer and Employee have entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of November 7, 2013 (the "Agreement"), as amended; and
WHEREAS, Employer is willing and Employee desires to modify certain terms and conditions to the Agreement as more fully set forth herein; 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the respective representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows:
		
	1.
	 Amendments.  


a.The Employer and Employee hereby agree to amend Section 3(b)c in its entirety to read as follows:


“c. Bonus Compensation.  Section 7(b) shall be modified to provide as follows: Employee will be eligible to receive a target annual bonus of 100% of the annual Base Salary received by Employee during the applicable year, all in accordance with the terms and conditions set by Employer subject to the withholdings described in Section 7(h). Employer retains the discretion to adopt or amend any bonus plan at any time prior to a Change of Control.”
b.    The Employer and Employee hereby agree to amend Section 3(b)d in its entirety to read as follows:
“d. Separation Payment.   The definition of “Separation Payment” shall be amended to mean the following: a lump sum equal to (A) Employee’s Base Salary (as defined in Section 7(a) of this Agreement) for the remainder of the Term, but not less than one (1) year of Base Salary, plus (B) the bonus that was paid to Employee under Section 7(b) for the preceding bonus period, plus (C) any accrued but unpaid vacation pay, less deductions of all applicable taxes and withholdings.”




Other Provisions of Agreement.  The parties acknowledge that the Agreement is being modified only as stated herein, and agree that nothing else in the Agreement shall be affected by this Amendment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed and effective as of the date first written above.
	
			
	WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED
	 
	EMPLOYEE

	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Matt Maddox
	 
	/s/ Stephen Cootey

	Matt Maddox, President
	 
	Stephen Cootey
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2056

To reduce temporarily the duty on palm fatty acid distillate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2005

Mr. GILLMOR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To reduce temporarily the duty on palm fatty acid distillate.

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

3 SECTION 1. PALM FATTY ACID DISTILLATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.39.40 Monocarboxylic fatty acids 

derived from palm oil (provided for in subheading 

3823.19.20) ......................... 1% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 2056 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00030-TLS-SLC

)

CARLOS SANCHEZ )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, CHIEF JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge

Susan Collins, on November 7, 2017, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for

Defendant, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant under oath on the

record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and of

counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charges against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not guilty,

to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and his

right against compelled self-incrimination;
(3) that Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and is

not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant be

adjudged guilty of the offenses charged in Counts 1 and 11 of the 12-count Superseding

Indictment, and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this

Findings and Recommendation be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be

scheduled before Chief Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections

to the Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14)

days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 7th day of November 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00361-JVB-JEM   document 2   filed 09/21/15   page 1 of 2

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00361-JVB-JEM   document 2   filed 09/21/15   page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of International Lease FinanceCorporation;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 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 we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:August 17, 2005/S/ Steven F. Udvar-Hazy
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 30839 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
NATHANIEL SINGLETON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07

- CR

- 20102

- 1

Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nathaniel Singleton, federal prisoner # 34438

- 018, who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime , moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. H e seeks to challenge the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion in which he sought a sentence

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 15, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-30839 Document: 00513549013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2016No. 15

- 30839

2 reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendments 782 and 788, which retroactively lowered certain offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)

. Singleton’ s guidelines range was not based on the quantity of cocaine pursuant to § 2D1.1(c); his guidelines range was based on U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. Accordingly, he was not sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commissio n, and the amendments do not apply to him. See United States v. Anderson , 591 F.3d 789, 791 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2009)

. T he district court did not abuse its discretion in denying h im a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, because there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, United States v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995) , Singleton cannot claim
in effect ive assistance of counsel, see Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991)

. Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous, Singleton ’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and h is appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. Se e Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202
n.24 (5th Cir. 1997 ) ; 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 15-30839 Document: 00513549013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2016
# C_2008262EN.01000301.xml

| 15.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5303 — Arques/SHC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 262/02)

On 25 September 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5303. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5303. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---