alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10105 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MICHAEL BARRETT, also known as “ Motorcycle Mike ” , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 132

- 20

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Barrett pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine, and he was sentenced to 420 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release. On appeal, h e challenges the district court’s denial of his appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and appoint substitute counsel for appeal and his motion for a continuance of the sentencing hearing.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED April 6, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10105 Document: 00514418638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2018No. 17

- 10105

2 Additionally, he co ntends that the 420

- month sentence, which was w ithin the applicable guidelines range of imprisonment, is substantively unreasonable.
Barrett has failed to demonstrate a “ complete breakdown in communication ” or “ irreconcilable conflict ” with counsel. United States v. Young , 482 F.2d 993, 995 (5th Cir. 1973)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denyin g the motion to withdraw and to appoint substitute counsel on appeal. See United States v. Simpson , 645 F.3d 300, 307 (5th Cir. 2011)

. In addition, Barrett has failed to show that the distr ict court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue his sentencing hearing. See United States v. Stalnaker , 571 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2009). He has not alleged, much less demonstrated, that he suffered “specific and compelling or serious prejudice” from the denial of the continuance. United States v. Barnett , 19 7 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse

of

- discretion standard. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

. Here,
t he district court considered Barrett’s arguments for a sentence below the guidelines range but determined that a 420

- month sentence was appropriate in light of Barrett’s criminal history and its belief that Barrett was a “danger to the community

. ” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Barrett ’s arguments are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within

- guidelines sentence. See United States v. Rashad , 687 F. 3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ruiz , 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010)

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Barrett ’s motion to relieve counsel and to appoint new counsel is DENIED. Case: 17-10105 Document: 00514418638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2018
| 1. The Report is in full compliance with reporting requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operation of the Corporation. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        | REBORNNE (USA), INC. |                                                                                                         |
|-----------------------------|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |                 |                                                                                                         |   |
| Date:  August 22, 2011 | By:                  | /s/ Dairy Global                                                                                             |   |
|                        |                 | Dairy Global                                                                                                 |   |
|                        |                 | President,                                                                                                   |   |
|                        |                 | Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |   |
Larry Craig CASH, Petitioner, v. Vance LAUGHLIN, Warden.

No. 19-6043

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
| 1.     | The Quarterly Report on Form 10Q/A of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and, |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |   |
| 2.     | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                       |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |   |

| By:    | /S/    | KEVIN KREISLERKEVIN KREISLERChief Executive Officer |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                |
| Date:  |   | November  23, 2010                        |

| By:    | /S/    | EDWARD R. CARROLLEDWARD R. CARROLLChief Financial and Accounting Officer |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                     |
| Date:  |   | November  23, 2010                                             |
Mitchell DINNERSTEIN, Petitioner v. BURLINGTON COUNTY COLLEGE

No. 19-5896

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.43


November 20, 2003

Mr. Michael Ruffolo
5 Cobblestone Place
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776

Dear Mike:

I am pleased to confirm our interest in having you join the Switchboard, Inc.
Board of Directors. In consideration of your service we provide the following
compensation:

         -        $25,000 annual retainer, paid quarterly

         -        $5,000 committee chair annual retainer, paid quarterly

         -        $3,000 committee member (non-chair) annual retainer, paid
                  quarterly

         -        A non-qualified stock option to purchase 40,000 shares of
                  Switchboard, Inc. common stock granted, at an exercise price
                  equal to the closing price, on the day of your appointment to
                  the board. This option will vest over four (4) years at the
                  rate of 10,000 shares every twelve (12) months.

         -        A non-qualified stock option to purchase 15,000 shares of
                  Switchboard, Inc. common stock granted, at an exercise price
                  equal to the closing price, on the day of each annual meeting.
                  This option vests 100% on the twelve (12) month anniversary.

         -        A non-qualified stock option to purchase 20,000 shares of
                  Switchboard, Inc. Common stock granted, at an exercise price
                  equal to the closing price, on your four-year anniversary as a
                  board member. This option will vest over four (4) years at the
                  rate of 5,000 shares every 12 months.

         -        Upon a change in control 100% of unvested stock options vest

         -        Subject to further discussions between the two of us, you will
                  be asked to join at least one Committee of the Board of
                  Directors.

Your appointment to the Switchboard Board of Directors is contingent on board
approval which I plan to address on or before December 10, 2003.

Mike, I am excited about your joining the team at Switchboard. I am confident
that your extensive business experience will make you an extremely valuable
addition to our board and an immediate contributor to our board's
decision-making processes. We have some great opportunities ahead of us and I
believe that Switchboard represents an exciting and unique opportunity.

Please return a signed copy of this letter to me in the enclosed envelope to
confirm your acceptance of this offer, and/or call me at 508-898-1602 to discuss
any follow on questions.

Sincerely,



William P. Ferry


Chairman of the Board                        Accepted: /s/ Michael Ruffolo
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       Michael Ruffolo
Lisa WILKINS, et al., Petitioners, v. James SOLER, et al.

No. 19-305

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

Appeal brought on 24 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 13 September 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-272/03 M.D. Fernández Gómez v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-417/05 P)

(2006/C 10/34)

Language of the case: French

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 September 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-272/03 M.D. Fernández Gómez v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In its appeal, the Commission relies on three pleas:

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 

 

March 27, 2018 

p0326 

Order 

 

Clerk 

March 27, 2018 

155889 

In re PETITION OF WAYNE COUNTY 

TREASURER FOR FORECLOSURE. 

_________________________________________ 

WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, 

Petitioner-Appellee. 

v SC: 155889 

 COA: 337847 

Wayne CC: 16-007539-CH 

MOURICE NEAL, 

Respondent-Appellant, 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 10, 2017 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## COA# 08-13-00057-CR OFFENSE: 71.02 Patrick Shaughnessy Hatt, Jr. 

## STYLE: v. The stateofTexas COUNTY: Tarrant 

# r/5" .m ccfPY

COA DISPOSITION: affirm TRIAL COURT: Criminal District Court No. 2 DATE: 1/30/15 Publish: no TC CASE #: 1299765R



## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS ELECTRONIC RECORD 

### Patrick Shaughnessy Hatt, Jr. v. STYLE: The State ofTexas CCA#: 

# APPELLANTS. Petition iSDOSition: 9 w w^*m '^ 

### CCA Disposition: DATE: 

### FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW INCCAIS: 

# 0jh**]< JUDGE: DATE: JUDGE: 

# fauu. Mf? 

### SIGNED:. PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR
Martin Nava LARA, Petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 19-6304

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Richard James SOLDAN, Petitioner v. MICHIGAN.

No. 19-5775

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
# Official Journal C 145/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.145.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 145 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 533 June 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.145.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 145

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 533 June 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2010/C 145/01 | Opinion No 3/2010 (pursuant to Article 322, TFEU) on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities | 1 |
| 2010/C 145/02 | Opinion No 4/2010 (pursuant to Article 322, TFEU) on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as regards the European External Action Service | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

Court of Auditors

2010/C 145/01

Opinion No 3/2010 (pursuant to Article 322, TFEU) on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities

(pursuant to Article 322, TFEU)

1

2010/C 145/02

Opinion No 4/2010 (pursuant to Article 322, TFEU) on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as regards the European External Action Service

(pursuant to Article 322, TFEU)

4

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Moussa DIARRA, Petitioner, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

No. 19-553

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Peter GAKUBA, Petitioner, v. Michelle NEESE.

No. 19-6543

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Usha JAIN, et vir, Petitioners, v. David BARKER, et al.;

Manohar Jain, as Trustee, its Successors or Successor Trustees Under the Manohar Jain Trust Dated July 1, 2000, et ux., Petitioner v. Bay Hill Property Owners Association, Inc.

No. 19-476

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
IN RE Barbara STONE, et al., Petitioners

No. 19-6093

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 16
- 00254
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF H .L.H. AND A.H., CHIL DREN

From the 413th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. DC
- D201500336

ORDER

C.M.W. and M.K.H. each filed a first amended notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s July 27, 2016 “Fi nal Order o f Termination ” in trial court cause number DC

D201500336. 1 Kimberly Gore also filed her notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s July 5, 2016 order denying her original verified petition in intervention in trial court cause
number DC

- D201500336

. The notices of a ppeal were assigned a single appellate cause

1 C.M.W.’s and M.K.H.’s original notice s of appeal challenged an order that was indisputably interlocutory; therefore, their appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In re H.L.H. , No. 10

- 16

- 00111

- CV, 2016 WL 3224798, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Waco Jun. 9, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).In the Interest of H.L.H. and A.H., Children Page 2

number

— 10

- 1 6

- 00 254

- CV. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 12.2(c) (“All notices of appeal filed in the same case must be given the same docket number.”). On September 13, 2016, this Court received the appellant’s briefs for C.M.W. and M.K.H. However, no brief has been filed for Gore. Accordingly, in a letter dated September 22, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified Gore that, under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3, the Court may dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution unless, within twenty

- one days of the date of the letter, she filed with the Court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See id. at R. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). More than twenty

- one days have passed, and we have received no response from Gore. Accordingly, we dismiss Gore’s appeal for want of prosecution. 2 See id. at R. 42.3(b).
PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed November 16, 2016 Do not publish [CV06]

2 C.M.W.’s and M.K.H.’s appeals remain pending.
# L_2008277EN.01S00301.xml

| 18.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6094** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. GERALD FELTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. ( 5:93

- cr - 00123

- F

- 1 )

Submitted : July 28, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Gerald Felton , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gerald Felto n appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to reconsider the district court’s denial of his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion to reduce his sentence based

on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines
. Because the district court lacked jur isdiction to consider Felton’s motion for reconsideration, we affirm the denial of relief
. See United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that district court lacks authority to grant motion to reconsider ru l ing on § 3582(c)(2) motion). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
# Official Journal C 281/18 N

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 281 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4718 November 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 281

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4718 November 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 281/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 281/2 | Re-notification of a previously notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3561 — DEUTSCHE TELEKOM/EUROTEL) — Council regulation (EC) No 139/2004 | 2 |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2004/C 281/3 | Agreement of 16 September 2004 between the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States outside the euro area amending the Agreement of 1 September 1998 laying down the operating procedures for an exchange rate mechanism in stage three of Economic and Monetary Union | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 281/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 281/2

Re-notification of a previously notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3561 — DEUTSCHE TELEKOM/EUROTEL) — Council regulation (EC) No 139/2004

2

European Central Bank

2004/C 281/3

Agreement of 16 September 2004 between the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States outside the euro area amending the Agreement of 1 September 1998 laying down the operating procedures for an exchange rate mechanism in stage three of Economic and Monetary Union

3

---

| | II   Preparatory Acts pursuant to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union |
| --- | --- |
| 2004/C 281/4 | Initiative of the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Framework Decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union, in particular as regards serious offences including terrorist acts | 5 |

II   Preparatory Acts pursuant to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union

2004/C 281/4

Initiative of the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Framework Decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union, in particular as regards serious offences including terrorist acts

5

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
James BAILEY-SNYDER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-742

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2018060EN.01000202.xml

| 16.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8757 — Nordic Capital/Alloheim)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 60/04)

On 12 February 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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:

1

| — | 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 32018M8757. 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 32018M8757. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---