alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lance D. JONES, Appellant.

No. 11-1651.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 5, 2011.

Filed: Aug. 12, 2011.

Laine Cardarella, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.

Bruce E. Clark, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Lance Jones appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). His counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California)*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has moved to withdraw.

*595We conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in sentencing Jones, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); *United States v. Todd,*521 F.3d 891, 897 (8th Cir.2008) (district court need not mechanically recite 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, especially when court applies Guidelines range). Nothing in the record indicates that the district court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. *See United States v. Haack,*403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing ways in which court might abuse its discretion at sentencing).

Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### HARTINGSON, Respondent, v. FORTY-SECOND ST. & M. R. CO, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Max Hartingson against the Forty-Second Street & Manhattanville Railroad Company.

Argued before O’BRIEN, FOLLETT, and PARKER, JJ.

A. Kling, for appellant.

J. Fromme, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### WM. H. FRANK BREWING CO. v. FIGUNDIO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 27, 1896.)

Action by the Wm. H. Frank Brewing Company ■against Teresina Figundio.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All •concur.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN 

### ?wruuT 13, 1939

Au-htia, TuA* lkrrNr. irinblor

tmau ate of v88 rueire trimI put 

### Eonornblo

TrY. Trlmblo Irlret &rie%nut St&e **Supertntadeut ~aHisanS**  **of Edueatlan** 



### 7hr Mnron Cnek 

### 8 86hooll88t I*-, nm mu* About 

### halt o? Point Sohool in 

### Bandszraahoolin

nad forth& 8mount of #ore 

### l tud8nt8' ato 

### 8ountrloneri **but** 

### they hart refuure41**Tha** 

### tmaSe88 hr?e also.reiu8ed tx~ pay 

### tuition to hat8r bointii thiah 

### i8 8 

### ?%8te Sia 88h001. *'I8t$r Ya8on Croer **School Matriot**  oblig&ed $0 

### PI3 high 8ObOO~ **ttlitioa** On it8 pupil8 who 8N **trUS?8mi** 

### 80 lOit 88 th8 

### 618tZ'iOt h88 OoSry 8T8il8bl8trol t.E l Otle8tiOA8

Qip88t

f,8rA.í..-

### wan. T.

m.. 

### b.6i~tl?i$o~u~~?t”“W ti ?U#W CrhO8fO **WU** 8iX -8 

### Ol.4

**86** th8 **k** 80bO~8ti. $.8r f 84I8hHNOA Ol? **lUl.h& Of**  **th8** &UUdiM UOidO dthiA.
. 8 &+AXWAtSOZ 1.01

. 8814 88hOO1 di8tri.t." 

### i. l

### . TOW AA-r60 thi. 

### intU&'O~tO~~ i8 iA thA *ml'lAAtiV8,

that 

### the di8trlotJ, liable ii th8 ohllE eota88 ~lthintho 8bO.V. 

### llrtrd 086.&0~~ 88 60 8&A 8Ad lUOidA8 rithln th8 d%StriOt. 4. TOW **AUt** &WO~SitiO~ 18: "1 d8tO 8&84 **the trU&OOS**  t0 **B~&A** VOUOhAr8 iOr $h. **WUXit Of**  th880 **8ttldUit.** 868t8 S& **OOUSt) ’**  **AOAAJ** but thy have retu~e4.~ fn **8a8wer to**  this, JOU **8re** sdrired that tbo proper tribune1 t88tOd with jUl'184bt1oll O? ut$8- Of tkd. **kind,** Uh8A 8pp11.4 **to,** a8n ad **8fll e08@0i**  **thr,** WOtbI6 Ot 6h8 Obu~tiOn h qU88tiOA br 

### propor judgmrtat.

l **~8~~6rU.t.88** h8YS 8180 ~0fAS.d t0 p18rtUitfOA to Centor 

### Point-which 18 8 strt8 8td 8ohoAl." liauwwer te Ws inquiry,. iou 8ro **rdvfrsd** t&t 

### ir tho St&Sl

i8í88hOOl

18 nWiliA6 k88h8r'8 814, t&M $h8 88d.w 4fAtriOt 18 lfrblo fOr th&t PUWat Of the UhOb ttl%tlW, th8t 18 AOt 

### pi4 by th. 8-t. 8%4 WJAO if M A818tf ail i8 &VOA 60 tL t0 t&8 lWOitifi& 4i8t~f.6, b&t' no4lrlag dlmtrlot *ha 8n4 ln theheWOAt th8 &A&w (iirkkt 18 118blS 

### tOr thr l&O18 Of tb $A&-

. 

### t8oh ud ti of th. 88OW l'OgoclitiOM'hW~ 

### bWtk aMWWe4 Wtk k818t&tt&X8 h88 bWR &V048ad.11tOn8nW.t81itth. P btXIt8 8aa/or Ud~g dlSt?k86 Of th8 8~1~86f08 f~ ~UOStiOb BallerJsb &I86 thi. has 8zuwArAd *aah ot ttm ln4umR8 mad8 **by** yeu, and tb4t 01 &vs male the 8itwtlon slew, *i 8ro
# C_2023125EN.01016801.xml

| 5.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/168 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/168

---

P9_TA(2022)0305

EU/Mauritius Fisheries Partnership Agreement: fishing opportunities and financial contribution 2017-2021. Extension of the Protocol ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 September 2022 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on an extension of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius (05657/2022 — C9-0166/2022 — 2022/0014(NLE))

(Consent)

(2023/C 125/17)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (05657/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (05657/2022),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius concerning an extension of the Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius (05658/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius concerning an extension of the Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius (05658/2022),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0166/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0166/2022),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Budgets,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0211/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A9-0211/2022),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Mauritius. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2091 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2091

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 7, 2015

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to clarify the ability to 
  request consumer reports in certain cases to establish and enforce 
                   child support payments and awards.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Support Assistance Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. REQUESTS FOR CONSUMER REPORTS BY STATE OR LOCAL CHILD SUPPORT 
              ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

    Paragraph (4) of section 604(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 
(15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(4)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or determining the 
        appropriate level of such payments'' and inserting ``, 
        determining the appropriate level of such payments, or 
        enforcing a child support order, award, agreement, or 
        judgment'';
            (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) by striking ``paternity'' and inserting 
                ``parentage''; and
                    (B) by adding ``and'' at the end;
            (3) by striking subparagraph (C); and
            (4) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).

            Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark J. Davis, Appellant.

[949 NYS2d 660]

Motion for reargument and reconsideration denied. Motion for writ of error co-ram nobis granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an issue on direct appeal that would have resulted in reversal, specifically, in failing to argue that the court erred when it failed to comply with CPL 310.30 in regard *1513to court exhibit #4. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of January 31, 2012 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see *People v LeFrois,*151 AD2d 1046 [1989]). Defendant is directed to perfect his appeal on or before September 6, 2012. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Lindley, JJ. (Filed June 8, 2012.)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael O'Brien, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ MICHAEL O'BRIEN
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael O'Brien
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance
November 13, 2006
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO THE

SCIQUEST, INC.

2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




     The SciQuest, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as of the
Effective Date (as defined herein) as follows:



     1. Amendment Regarding Number of Reserved Shares. Section 3 of the Plan is hereby
amended by deleting Section 3 in its entirety and substituting the following new Section 3
therefor:



Section 3.

Shares Subject to Stock Incentives





     The total number of Shares that may be issued pursuant to Stock Incentives under this
Plan (and the total number of Shares that may be issued pursuant to the exercise of ISO’s
under this Plan) shall not exceed 6,615,472, as adjusted pursuant to Section 10. Such
Shares shall be reserved, to the extent that the Company deems appropriate, from authorized
but unissued Shares, and from Shares which have been reacquired by the Company.
Furthermore, any Shares subject to a Stock Incentive which remain after the cancellation,
expiration or exchange of such Stock Incentive thereafter shall again become available for
use under this Plan. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no Participant may be
granted Stock Incentives covering an aggregate number of Shares in excess of 1,200,000 in
any calendar year, and any Shares subject to a Stock Incentive which again become available
for use under this Plan after the cancellation, expiration or exchange of such Stock
Incentive thereafter shall continue to be counted in applying this calendar year Participant
limitation.



     2. Effective Date. The effective date of this Amendment is February 5, 2008 (the
“Effective Date”).



     3. Miscellaneous.



          (a) Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the
Plan.




          (b) Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall otherwise remain in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms.




 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 2 to the SciQuest, Inc. 2004
Stock Incentive Plan to be executed as of the Effective Date.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SCIQUEST, INC.

 	 
	 	By:   	/s/ Stephen J. Wiehe	 
	 	 	Stephen J. Wiehe, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2021344EN.01000201.xml

| 27.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/2

---

Inapplicability of the Regulation to a notified operation

(Case M.9741 — Ines Kaindl/Peter Kaindl/M Kaindl)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 344/02)

On 24 September 2020, the Commission decided that the notified operation in the above case does not fall within the scope of the application of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1) because it does not constitute a concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of the said Regulation. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(a) of the Regulation. The full text of the decision is available only in English 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 32020M9741. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9741. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         144,520
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  293,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (31,755)
<INVENTORY>                                     58,577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               519,808
<PP&E>                                         460,864
<DEPRECIATION>                               (310,822)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,076,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,547,749
<BONDS>                                         37,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       323,317
<OTHER-SE>                                   (810,093)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,076,363
<SALES>                                      1,603,689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,603,689
<CGS>                                          466,524
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,795,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,869,369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,056,161)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,057,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,057,761)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Daniel P. Foster (Admitted as Daniel Paul Foster), an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

February 17, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert H. Straus*for petitioner.

*Daniel P. Foster,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate *17Division, First Judicial Department, on March 17, 1980, under the name Daniel Paul Foster.

On August 28, 1986, the respondent was convicted after a jury trial in the Supreme Court, New York County, of grand larceny in the second degree (two counts) (Penal Law former § 155.35, a class D felony), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts) (Penal Law § 170.25, a class D felony), and conspiracy in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 105.05, a class A misdemeanor).

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), upon his conviction of a felony, the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. The respondent is disbarred and it is directed that the respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law forthwith.

Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Bracken, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00154

- CV

Elma Thomas

v.

Peters Colony §

§

§

§ From County Court at Law No. 2

of Denton County (CV

- 2015

- 00793)

January 14, 2015

Per Curiam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismiss for want

of prosecution

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Athens, Georgia
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Dianne  Price
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Program Analyst
                        Phone:    
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov