alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE 2 OF ELI ORLOWSKY, Deceased, 3 WILCOX LAW FIRM, P.C., 4 Claimant-Appellant, 5

v. NO. 31,870 6 ESTATE OF ELI ORLOWSKY, 7 DOUGLAS ORLOWSKY, PERSONAL 8 REPRESENTATIVE , 9 Defendant-Appellee. 10
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 11 Carl J. Butkus, District Judge 12 Wilcox Law Firm, P.C. 13 Vickie R. Wilcox 14 James A. Noel 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 Karl H. Roepke 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellee 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 212 VIGIL, Judge. 1 Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 2 proposed summary disposition filed on March 13, 2012. Claimant filed a 3 memorandum in opposition to proposed summary disposition on April 2, 2012. 4 Summary affirmance was proposed again for the reasons stated in the second notice 5 of proposed summary disposition filed on May 9, 2012. No memorandum opposing 6 summary affirmance has been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 7 AFFIRMED . 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

_______________________________ 10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 11
WE CONCUR: 12

_________________________________ 13 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 14

_________________________________ 15 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 16
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 2356

ANTONIO JOSE ZAMBRANO REYES

,

Petitioner

,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR

, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : August 20, 2019 Decided: September 3, 2019

Before MOTZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Sam H. Hasan, HASAN LAW GROUP, Falls Church, Virginia , for Petitioner. Joseph H

. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Leslie McKay

, Senior Litigation Counsel

, Office of Immigration Litigation

, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washi ngton, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Antonio Jose Zambrano Reyes

, a native and citizen o f Mexico, petition s for review

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen and

reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and Zambrano Reyes’ claims and

conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(a) (2019); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly,

we deny the petition for review substantially for the reasons stated by the Board. *

In re Zambrano Reyes (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal cont entions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

* Even if we assume that Zambrano Reyes’ motion was timely filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv) (2012) , the Board provided substantive reasoning for denying the

motion. Because this reasoning was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law” Mosere,

552 F.3d at 400 (internal quotation marks omitted), we find no abuse of discretion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

REBECCA DIANE MERKEL (2) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 6:23-CR-00096-JDK 

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court referred this matter to the Honorable John D. Love, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate 

Judge recommended that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant 

guilty on Count One of the Indictment. 

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers 

acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Rebecca Diane 

Merkel (2) GUILTY of Count One of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 21 U.S.C. 

§ 846 - Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3rd April, 2024.

Case 6:23-cr-00096-JDK-JDL Document 245 Filed 04/03/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 622
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 24, 2021.

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

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 24, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0322. AVERY TUCKER v. LEWANNA TUCKER.

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

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2017CV297573
Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 544
Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 49 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 545
Gesner DELVA aka Ti Blan, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5644.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HUMBERTO CEBALLOS, JR.

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

State

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 059

- C R

Appeal from the

34 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20170D00479 )

O R D E R

The clerk’s record has been filed . The trial court’s Ce rtification of Defendant’s Right of

Appeal does not indicate whether or not the defendant has the right to appeal. Therefore, the Court

ORDERS that the Honorable William E. Moody , Judge for the 3 4 th District Court of El Paso

County, Texas, enter a n amended Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal. The amended

Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal s hall be filed with the District Clerk of El Paso

County, Texas, and the District Clerk shall prepare a supplemental clerk ’ s record which will

include the amended certification and file it with this Court on or before June 2 6 , 201 9

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 1 th day of June , 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Exhibit 10.2


 


SECURED
TERM PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	$900,000	                       Advance Date:        March 14, 2019
	 	 
	 	                        Maturity Date:  September 30, 2019



 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
Ondas Holdings Inc., a Nevada corporation, for itself and each of its Subsidiaries (the “Borrower”) hereby promises
to pay to the order of Energy Capital, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, or the holder of this Note (the “Lender”)
at Lender’s address listed in Loan Agreement, or such other place of payment as the holder of this Secured Term Promissory Note
(this “Promissory Note”) may specify from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America,
the principal amount of Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($900,000) or such lesser principal amount as Lender has advanced to Borrower,
together with interest as set forth in that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated October 1, 2018, by and among Borrower, its
Domestic Subsidiaries party thereto and Lender (as the same may from time to time be amended, modified or supplemented in accordance
with its terms, the “Loan Agreement”).


 


This Promissory Note
is the Term Note referred to in, and is executed and delivered in connection with, the Loan Agreement, and is entitled to the benefit
and security of the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents (as defined in the Loan Agreement), to which reference is made
for a statement of all of the terms and conditions thereof. All payments shall be made in accordance with the Loan Agreement. All
terms defined in the Loan Agreement shall have the same definitions when used herein, unless otherwise defined herein. An Event
of Default under the Loan Agreement shall constitute an Event of Default under this Promissory Note.


 


Borrower waives presentment
and demand for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest under the UCC or any applicable law. Borrower agrees
to make all payments under this Promissory Note without setoff, recoupment or deduction and regardless of any counterclaim or defense.
This Promissory Note has been negotiated and delivered to Lender and is payable in the State of Florida. This Promissory Note shall
be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Florida, excluding any conflicts of law
rules or principles that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.


 


BORROWER FOR ITSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ITS
SUBSIDIARIES: 


 





	 	ONDAS HOLDINGS INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Eric A. Brock
	 	 	Eric A. Brock, Chief Executive Officer
H.K.V., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al.

No. 19M101

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal granted.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 4734** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. YANCEY COOPER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Benson Everett Legg , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00239

- BEL

- 1 )

Submitted : April 30, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Sicilia Chinn Englert, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Yancey Cooper pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of distribution of and possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C .A . § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) ( West 1999 & Supp. 2011 ). The district court sentenced Cooper to 180 months’ imprisonment, as stipulated in the plea agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) . Cooper contends on appeal that, as a result of the district court’s omissions at the Fed. R. Cri m. P. 11 colloquy, his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. We affirm. Because Cooper did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his c laims for plain error. United States v. Martinez , 277 F.3d 517, 524

- 25 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, Cooper must show that: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects his substantial rights. United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Even if Cooper makes this showing, however, correc tion of the error lies within our discretion, which we will not exercise unless the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted). Cooper contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court did not advise him that3 his guilty plea waived all antecedent non

- jurisdictional defects and failed to inform him about the waiver of trial rights and the mandatory max imum and minimum penalties for his offense. Even if there were omissions at the Rule 11 hearing, Cooper is not entitled to relief because any errors did not affect his substantial rights. An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if it is so pre judicial as to affect the outcome of the proceedings. Martinez , 277 F.3d at 532. In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets this standard by showing that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the Rule 11 error. Id. W e conclude that Cooper has fail ed to make this showing. Accordingly, we discern no plain error. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
C ourt and arg ument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0494 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. DAVID ALAN SPAGNOLO ,

Defendant and Appellant,

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 1 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 20 2021

09/20/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0494
## **EXHIBIT 31.1**

## **CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

## I, Roger E.Gower, certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Micro Component Technology, Inc.:

2. Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation.

c) disclosed in thisreport any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.
| Dated:   August  14, 2007 | By:                                                   | /s/ Roger E. Gower |   |
|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|                                     | Roger E. Gower  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

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



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                           8,292
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,904
<ALLOWANCES>                                       573
<INVENTORY>                                      3,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,141
<PP&E>                                           4,420
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,138
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,238
<SALES>                                          6,603
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,603
<CGS>                                            3,114
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (166)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,807)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,807)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        

</TABLE>
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/30/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      362,693
COMMITMENTS
  98,874  170,474   75,187  167,673   92,743  341,734  338,404   20,959   24,289

CHANGES FROM 07/23/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,264)
   3,976   16,421       68   -1,089  -12,867    2,955    3,622      309     -358

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    27.3     47.0     20.7     46.2     25.6     94.2     93.3      5.8      6.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      168)
      48       74       75       36       30      130      139
```

----

Updated August 2, 2013
Roderick McKISSICK, petitioner, v. Nathan DEAL, Governor of Georgia, et al.

No. 18-6441.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 

GOODRICH CORPORATION 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 2011 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN 

(Effective April 19, 2011) 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is made this 11th day of January, 2012, by Goodrich Corporation (the “Company”). 

W I T N E S S E T H 
 WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Goodrich Corporation 2011 Equity Compensation Plan, effective April 19, 2011 (the “Plan”); and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 28 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company has the right to amend the Plan from time to
time; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has taken action authorizing this Amendment to the Plan. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 Section 25 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph immediately following subsection (d) as follows: 
 “Notwithstanding anything set forth in this Plan or an award previously made under this Plan to the contrary, for each award made under this Plan that constitutes nonqualified deferred compensation
under Section 409A of the Code, to the extent required to avoid accelerated taxation and/or tax penalties under Section 409A of the Code, a Change in Control shall be deemed to have occurred for purposes of the payment or settlement of
such award only if a “change in the ownership or effective control of the corporation” or a “change in the ownership of a substantial portion of the assets of the corporation,” in each case within the meaning of Treasury
Regulation Section 1.409A-3(a)(5), shall have occurred under Section 409A of the Code.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company, by its duly authorized officer, has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	GOODRICH CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	  

		
	Title:
Julius J. LARRY, III, appellant, v. ARKANSAS, et al.

No. 18-433.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
---

Exhibit 99.6

SOA Section 906 Certification

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended April 25, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or § 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

DATED the 13th day of July, 2010.

(s) Raymond ParéName:   Raymond Paré 
Title:     Vice-President and  Chief Financial Officer

---
Raymond JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7066.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2216

To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical HPA.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 15, 1999

Ms. KAPTUR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical HPA.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

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:

‘‘ 9902.32.54 Hydroxypivalic acid (HPA) (provided

for in subheading 2918.19.90) ......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2003 ’’.

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

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to goods entered,

10 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after
2

•HR 2216 IH

1 the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment

2 of this Act.

Æ