alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-07-0426-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	JULY 22, 2008

	______________________________

	BRENNEN YOUNG, 

								Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

								Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;

	NO.  5426; HON. KELLY G. MOORE, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., HANCOCK, J., and BOYD, S.J.1

	Appellant Brennen Young appeals from an order adjudicating him guilty of the offense of aggravated sexual assault.  Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to the offense on June 21, 2006, and the trial court deferred the adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community supervision for ten years.  Subsequently, the State filed a motion to proceed with the adjudication of his guilt.  Appellant pled not true to the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision, and the trial court conducted a hearing on same.  The court adjudicated his guilt and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison on September 11, 2007.  The trial court granted appellant permission to appeal on September 12, 2007. 

	Appellant’s counsel has now moved to withdraw, after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and representing that he has searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal.  The motion and brief illustrate that appellant was informed of his right to review the appellate record and file his own brief.  So too did we inform appellant that any pro se response or brief he cared to file had to be filed by April 21, 2008.  On April 16, 2008, appellant filed a response wherein he requested counsel be appointed to assist him in his response.  On April 17, 2008, we advised appellant that he was presently represented by counsel and that if this court determined new counsel should be required the case would be returned to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel.  Furthermore, we advised appellant that his pro se response, if any, was due on May 8, 2008.  To date, appellant has filed no pro se response or brief.  

	In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal involving the adjudication and punishment hearing.  However, after discussing the evidence adduced at the hearing, he found no reversible error had occurred.  We have also conducted an independent review of the record to determine whether there existed reversible error and found none.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring us to conduct an independent review).  Appellant admitted to various of the alleged violations of his community supervision during his testimony at the adjudication hearing.  And, the punishment assessed was also within the range prescribed by law.  Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §12.32(a) (Vernon 2003).

	Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

							Brian Quinn

							Chief Justice

Do not publish.
William Lawrence CAROLINA, Jr., petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA.

No. 16-6027.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.
Fairly W. EARLS, petitioner, v. Michael A. DITTMAN, Warden.

No. 16-5932.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998,
FILED AS PART OF FORM 10-QSB QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB
QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         306,998
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  231,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               563,005
<PP&E>                                       1,016,752
<DEPRECIATION>                               (717,147)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 937,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          531,964
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,072,628
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,771,841)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   937,563
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,065,322
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,865,746
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             225,179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,019,785)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,019,785)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                256,344
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,763,441)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.071)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.071)
        

</TABLE>
Darryl MONTGOMERY, Jr., petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-5509.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Manuel MADRID, petitioner, v. Thomas GRIFFIN, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

No. 16-5951.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2



                     SALES AND MARKETING SERVICES AGREEMENT


         This agreement is made as of September 1, 2000 by and between Security
Village.com (SV) and Security Associates International, Inc. (SAI) in regard to
the provision of sales and marketing services by SAI to SV. The parties hereto
agree as follows:

1.       SAI will provide  said  services  beginning  September 1, 2000 at a
price of $85,000 per month.

2.       SV will pay $170,000 in advance for September and October prior to
August 15, 2000.

3.       This agreement will continue between the parties until the earliest of:
(i) the merger of SAI and SecurityVillage; (ii) the expiration of the Dealer
Agreement between SAI and SecurityVillage as defined in the Letter of Intent
between the parties; (iii) October 1, 2000 if the Merger Agreement between the
parties is not executed; (iv) if SAI is not able to perform the marketing
services; or (v) a date as may be mutually agreed by the parties.

4.       All systems sold through SAI's marketing efforts will be owned by
SecurityVillage. SAI will retain the exclusive right to provide monitoring
services for all accounts sold at its lowest rates.




Agreed and accepted by:





/s/ Peter Fidelman                       /s/ James Brannen
--------------------------               ---------------------------------------
Security Village.com, Inc.               Security Associates International, Inc.
Peter Fidelman                           James Brannen
President                                President
Dan STOCKWELL, petitioner, v. James KEY, Superintendent, Airway Heights Corrections Center.

No. 16-5849.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
II-01110

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jim Picardi <jim@jimpicardi.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:11 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Jim Picardi

27 RAND RD

Shelburne falls, MA 1370
Daniel JONES, petitioner, v. Tim VIRGA, Warden.

No. 16-6858.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Michael SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6942.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
abmd-ex1030_939.htm



Exhibit 10.30 

Summary of Executive Officer Compensation 

The following named executive officers of ABIOMED, Inc. listed in the table below are at will employees of ABIOMED, Inc. and have not entered into a formal employment agreement with ABIOMED, Inc. The current understanding between each employee and ABIOMED, Inc. with respect to the employee’s compensation, as approved by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors on May 24, 2016, is as follows: 

 


			
	
	
Name

 
	
Base Salary (Effective June 1, 2016)

 
	
Target
Fiscal 2017
Bonus
(Percentage
of Salary) 

 

	
William J. Bolt
	
$330,855
	
60%

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Andrew J. Greenfield
	
$314,019
	
60%

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Michael G. Howley
	
$334,912
	
65%




These officers are also eligible to receive grants of stock options and other awards at the discretion of ABIOMED’s Compensation Committee. 

We have an employment agreement with our Chief Executive Officer, Michael R. Minogue, which sets forth the terms of his employment. Mr. Minogue’s salary, effective June 1, 2016, will be $648,748 and his target bonus for fiscal 2017 is 120% of salary. We have an offer letter with our Chief Financial Officer, Michael J. Tomsicek, which sets forth the terms of his employment. Mr. Tomsicek’s salary, effective June 1, 2016, will be $360,500 and his target bonus for fiscal 2017 is 60% of salary. We also have an offer letter with our Chief Operating Officer, David M. Weber, which sets forth the terms of his employment. Mr. Weber’s salary, effective June 1, 2016, will be $382,616 and his target bonus for fiscal 2017 is 70% of salary.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000745379
<NAME> KENAN TRANSPORT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,665
<PP&E>                                          92,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,177
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,400
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,306
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,481
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,692
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (138)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,002
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,432
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.48
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-11148 

Summary Calendar

__________________

VICTOR WESS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DR. REVELL, Dr.; S.O. GUNTER; COOLBERLEE, Dr.;

MYRICK, RN; FITZGERALD, RN,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-163

- - - - - - - - - -

June 10, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Regardless whether the plaintiff's "Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation" are construed as a FED. R. CIV.

P. 59 motion or a motion to amend the complaint, the plaintiff

has failed to allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the

magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion by dismissing the

suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge

No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 220 
No. 95-11148

-2-

(1994); Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.

1990); Pan-Islamic Trade Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 632 F.2d 539, 546

(5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 927 (1981).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 21.1

# SUBSIDIARIES OF
REGISTRANT

|Name                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Semitool Europe Ltd.                     
  Semitool Halbleitertechnik Vertriebs GmbH
  Semitool France SARL                     
  Semitool Italia SRL                      
  Semitool Japan Inc.                      
  Semitool Korea, Inc.                     
  Semitool (Asia) Pte Ltd.                 
  Rhetech, Inc.                            
  Semitool Austria GmbH                    
  Semitool Israel, Limited |  | United Kingdom
Germany
France
Italy
Japan
Korea
Singapore
Delaware
Austria
Israel
# C_2011063EN.01000501.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium)) — Omalet NV v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

(Case C-245/09) (1)

1

(Freedom to provide services - Article 49 EC - Contractor established in a Member State - Recourse to contracting partners established in the same Member State - Purely internal situation - Inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)

2011/C 63/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Omalet NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — Social legislation — Undertaking established in Belgium and having recourse to subcontractors which are also established in that Member State but are not registered with the national authorities — Whether or not Article 49 EC is applicable

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), made by decision of 25 June 2009, is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
BAE HYUK SHIN, petitioner, v. J. SOTO, Warden.

No. 15-9259.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Christian Dior WOMACK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6555.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 23.1

|ALBERTWONG & CO.CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 7th Floor, Nan Dao Commercial Building 359-361 Queen's Road Central 
Hong Kong 
Tel : 2851 7954 
Fax: 2545 4086ALBERTWONGB.Soc.,Sc.,
ACA., LL.B., 
C.P.A. (Practising)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors 
ACL Semiconductors Inc.

We
  hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into Form 10-K/A of ACL Semiconductors
    Inc. to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about May 4, 2010, filed pursuant to the Securities
    Act of 1933, of our report dated  April 14, 2010, with respect to the financial statements
    of ACL Semiconductors Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2008.



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|Albert Wong & Co.
Hong Kong
Dated: May 4, 2010





---
No. 791.

#### Continental Casualty Co. *v.*United States for the use of Schaefer, doing business as Concrete Construction Co., et al.

C. A. 9th Cir.

*George W. Wilkins*for petitioner.

*Cutler W. Halverson*for Schaefer, respondent.

Certiorari denied.
Scott Edward SATTLER, II, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6666.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-01066

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

ronald johnson <rj ohnson460@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:35 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

ronald johnson

14oldcountryway

braintree, MA 02184 8305
EXHIBIT 32.2

                 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.
                              A Nevada Corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of International Building Technologies
Group,  Inc.  ("Company")  on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Kenneth Yeung, Chief Financial Officer,  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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: March 30, 2011                      /s/ Kenneth Yeung
                                           -------------------------------------
                                      By:  Kenneth Yeung
                                      Its: Chief Financial Officer