alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Delaware wn.

The First State

I, JEFFREY W. BULLOCK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT

COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION OF "SWAPEX, LLC", FILED IN

THIS OFFICE ON THE TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, A.D. 2012, AT
7:54 O'CLOCK P.M.

SQ) SLC

Jeffrey W. Bullock, Secretary of State
5111336 8100 AUTHENT{CATION: 9464144

120362500 DATE: 03-28-12

You may verify this certificate online
at corp. delaware. gov/authver. shtml



State of Delaware
Secretary of State
Division 0: Goxporations
Delivered 08:04 03/27/2012
FILED 07:54 PM 03/27/2012
SRV 120362500 - 5111336 FILE

CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION
OF
SWAPEX, LLC

FIRST: The name of the limited liability company is SwapEx, LLC (the “Company”.

SECOND: The address of the Company’s registered office in the State of Delaware is
Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, in
the county of New Castle. The name of the Company’s registered agent for
service of process in the State of Delaware at such address is The Corporation
Trust Company.

THIRD: The debts, obligations and liabilities of the Company thereof, whether arising in
contract, tort or otherwise, shall be solely the debts, obligations and liabilities of
the Company and no member or manager of the Company shall be obligated
personally for any such debt, obligation or liability of the Company solely by
reason of being a member or acting as a manager of the Company.

FOURTH: This Certificate of Formation is effective upon filing.

FIFTH: The Company shall have perpetual existence.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation

s
of SwapEx, LLC this 2¢'day of March, 2012.

mo Boz

Tomas Zikps, Aythorized Person
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emil EAGLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4214.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 14, 2006.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2006.

Joshua Snow Kendrick, Joshua Snow Kendrick, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stanley D. Ragsdale, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emil Eaglin appeals from his conviction pursuant to a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and the resulting concurrent 235-month sentences. Eaglin’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but addressing the validity of Eaglin’s plea and sentence. Eaglin was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm.

We find that Eaglin’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11. Eaglin was properly advised of his rights, the offenses charged, and the maximum sentence for the offenses. The court also determined that there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises. *See North Carolina v. Alford,*400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); *United*
      *236
      *States v. DeFusco,*949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir.1991).

We find that the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing factors before imposing the 235-month sentences. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 *&*Supp. 2006); *see United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005). Additionally, we find that the sentence imposed is reasonable. *See United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (“[A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated [guidelines range ... is presumptively reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006).

As required by *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Eaglin’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Jones, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 853] —

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Thomas P Franczyk, J. — Attempted Burglary, 3rd Degree). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Peradotto, Garni and Green, JJ.
```

[Federal Register: December 15, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 69060]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15de98-44]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 22, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-33270 Filed 12-11-98; 11:21 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1198 

Congratulating Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania for 140 years of 

excellence in higher education. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2010 

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania for 

140 years of excellence in higher education. 

Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania was founded 

in 1870 as Central State Normal School; 

Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, located in 

Lock Haven, Pennsylvania has 4,665 undergraduate students enrolled at the main campus and 440 students enrolled at the Clearfield campus; 

Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania competes in 

8 women’s and 7 men’s intercollegiate NCAA sports; 

Whereas students attending Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania can obtain degrees and certificates from 60 different undergraduate programs and 3 different graduate 

programs; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1198 IH 

Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania has 17,000 

living alumni; and 

Whereas 97 percent of recent Lock Haven University of 

Pennsylvania graduates are employed or continuing their 

education and 84 percent of employed graduates are 

working in their field of study or chosen field: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania for 140 

3 years of excellence in higher education. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erasto VALLEJO, a/k/a Erasto Vallejo-Castillo, E.T., Rascal & Baby Poppy, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50129.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*661Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 11, 2008.

Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Fred Wallace Slaughter, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kathryn A. Young, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Erasto Vallejo appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand.

Vallejo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. He also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We conclude that the district did not procedurally err and that Vallejo’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*-U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

*662Vallejo’s contention that the supervised release condition requiring him to report to the probation office within 72-hours of any reentry to the United States violates his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination is foreclosed by *United States v. Abbouchi,*502 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir.2007).

We also conclude that the district court did not err in denying Vallejo’s motion to dismiss the indictment. Vallejo’s contention that the fact a firearm was manufactured outside the state in which it was found is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the Commerce Clause is foreclosed by *United States v. Latu,*479 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2007).

Finally, Vallejo contends that Conditions 6, 7, and 8 of his supervised release are unconstitutionally vague and over-broad. We conclude that Conditions 7 and 8 are constitutionally permissible. *See United States v. Soltero,*510 F.3d 858, 865-67 (9th Cir.2007). However, as conceded by the Government, Condition 6 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it prohibits Vallejo from associating with “any disruptive group.” *See id.*at 867. In addition, our case law suggests that this condition’s failure to limit the restriction to associating with “known” members of criminal street gangs also renders the condition vague and overbroad. *Cf. United States v. Ross,*476 F.3d 719, 722-23 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, we remand to the district court for it to revise Condition 6 to excise the term “disruptive group” and to specify that the restriction on associating with gang members applies to persons “known” to Vallejo to be members of criminal street gangs.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
H. Res. 1294 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 11, 2010. 

Whereas the bomb and mine disposal profession was created 

in April 1941; 

Whereas members of Explosive Ordnance Disposal organizations perform a dangerous and selfless task often without 

recognition, risking their lives on behalf of the United 

States; 

Whereas the United States will forever be in debt to personnel in the profession of explosive ordnance disposal for 

their bravery and sacrifice in times of peace and war; 

Whereas people in the United States should express their recognition and gratitude for members of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal profession; and 

Whereas the first Saturday in May would be an appropriate 

date to observe as National Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

Day: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

the designation of National Explosive Ordnance Disposal Day 

to honor those who are serving and have served in the noble 
2 

•HRES 1294 EH 

and self-sacrificing profession of Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

in the United States Armed Forces. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1165 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1165

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 2010

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment of G. Thomas 
  Porteous, Jr., a judge of the United States District Court for the 
                     Eastern District of Louisiana.

    Resolved, That Mr. Schiff, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Johnson of 
Georgia, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Sensenbrenner are appointed managers on the part 
of the House to conduct the trial of the impeachment of G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., 
a Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Louisiana, that a message be sent to the Senate to inform the Senate of these 
appointments, and that the managers on the part of the House may exhibit the 
articles of impeachment to the Senate and take all other actions necessary in 
connection with preparation for, and conduct of, the trial, which may include 
the following:
            (1) Employing legal, clerical, and other necessary assistants and 
        incurring such other expenses as may be necessary, to be paid from 
        amounts available to the Committee on the Judiciary under House 
        Resolution 15, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, agreed to January 13, 
        2009, or any other applicable expense resolution on vouchers approved by 
        the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
            (2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with the Secretary of 
        the Senate, on the part of the House of Representatives, any subsequent 
        pleadings which they consider necessary.

        NANCY PELOSI,
                                        Speaker of the House of Representatives.

            Attest:
        LORRAINE C. MILLER,
                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Tag Mechanical Systems, Inc., Plaintiff, v P.S. Griswold Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. P.S. Griswold Co., Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Howlett Hill Fire Department, *1369Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

[874 NYS2d 844] —

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered January 24, 2008 in a breach of contract action. The order, among other things, denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation discontinuing appeals signed by the attorneys for the parties on February 5 and 6, 2009,

It is hereby ordered that said appeals are unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.
Ex-10.5



 






Exhibit 10.5




AMENDMENT TO

CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT



THIS AMENDMENT, made the 17th day of August, 2005, by CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the
“Company”), a North Carolina corporation with its principal office at Concord, North
Carolina, and Ron Marino (“Employee”), an employee of the Company.



WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have previously entered into a Change in Control
Agreement dated March 7, 2003 (the “Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide that any Compensation
payable to the Employee under the terms of the Agreement shall be paid in the form of a
single lump sum.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms contained herein, the Employee’s
employment with the Company, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Employee agree that the
Agreement shall be and hereby is amended by deleting Section IA and substituting therefor
the following:



“A. If a Change in Control (as defined in Section IA(iii) hereof) occurs and if, within
two years following the Change in Control, the employment of the Employee is terminated (A)
by the Company other than for Cause (as defined in Section IA(i) hereof), or (B) by the
Employee for Good Reason (as defined in Section IA(ii) hereof), an amount equal to the
Employee’s Compensation (as defined in Section IA(iv) hereof), less applicable withholdings,
shall be paid by the Company to the Employee in a single lump sum within 30 days of
termination of the Employee’s employment under circumstances entitling the Employee to
Compensation hereunder.”



Except as amended herein, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties hereto effective as
of the day and year first above stated.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ RICHARD L. GARNER, JR.	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	      Richard L. Garner, Jr.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EMPLOYEE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	     /s/ RON MARINO	 	(Seal)
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	          Ron Marino	 	 






41
No. 498. No. 499.

#### Allen C. Weissman Co., Inc. et al. *v.*Denison et al.; and Same *v.*Lehigh Bernstein Manufacturing Corp.

November 25, 1935.

*Mr. Grover C. Ladner*for petitioners.

*Mr. Arthur E. Sutherland*for respondents.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
#### Kenneth L. SMITH, Appellant v. Clarence THOMAS, Honorable, et al., Appellees.

No. 10-5041.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

July 1, 2010.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 19, 2010.

Kenneth L. Smith, Golden, CO, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Ronald C. Machen, Jr., Esquire, Mitchell P. Zeff, U.S., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Ap-pellees.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed January 21, 2010, and January 27, 2010, be affirmed. Appellant sought mandamus relief to compel the Justices of the United States Supreme Court to hear and decide all claims brought before the Court. The district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to order the Supreme Court to take any action. *See In re Marin,*956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam). As for appellant’s alternative request to declare the Bill of Rights “null and void,” the district court properly held it lacked authority to render a declaratory judgment because there was no “case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). *See MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,*549 U.S. 118, 126-27, 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604 (2007).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
| (1)   | the      quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Rolling Technologies, Inc. for the      quarter ended January 31, 2009, 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter      ended January 31, 2009, fairly presents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Rolling Technologies,      Inc. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Tee Kai    Shen                                                              |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                            |
| Name:  | Tee      Kai Shen                                                               |
|   |                                                                            |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                            |
| Date:  | March      6, 2009                                                              |
Exhibit 32



                Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report") by Global Payment Technologies,
Inc. ("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that to the best of his
knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Registrant.



Date: January 25, 2008            /s/ William McMahon
                                  ------------------------------------
                                  William McMahon, President, Chief Executive
                                  Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal
                                  Executive and Financial Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
has been provided to Global Payment Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Global Payment Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       6
<PAGE>

(10)(17) Waiver of Cashless Exercise Provisions in Stock Option by Richard O.
Weed

                                                            September 6, 2005


Marketing Worldwide Corporation
Attention: Jim Marvin, CFO
                           2212 GRAND COMMERCE DRIVE
                                HOWELL, MI 48855

Telephone (517) 540-0045
Facsimile (517) 540-0923

         RE: Waiver of Cashless Exercise Provision

Dear Jim:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm in writing my agreement to waive the
"cashless exercise" provision concerning my option to purchase 250,000 shares at
$1.00 per share.

As modified, the paragraph in the Fee Agreement dated August 10, 2003 shall
read:

The options granted will not be subject to dilution (i.e. no adjustment to the
number of shares or the exercise price) based upon any reverse split of the
MWWC's common stock. The stock options shall be exercisable in whole or in part
with a promissory note of less than 45 days duration or upon common "cashless
exercise" terms.

         Thanks.

                                                     Sincerely yours,



                                                     Richard O. Weed
                                                     Managing Partner