alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 10-31100 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:02-CR-139-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Jorge M a rt inez, federal prisoner # 22231-034, appeals the denial of his motion to compel the government to move to reduce his sentence under Rule 35 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 1 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-31100 Document: 00511590692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2011No. 10-31100

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He argu ed that the government orally agre e d t o f

il e such a motion for substantial assistance that he had provided after sentencing and that the government had refused to file the motion. Neither party makes a jurisdictional challenge, but we must consider this court’s and the district court’s jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Key , 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court has jurisdiction to correct or modify Martinez’s sentence in limited circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (b) and (c). The applicable provision confers jurisdiction if the government moves to reduce a sentence under Rule 35(b). Assuming arguendo that a promise was made, the district court has jurisdiction to review the government’s refusal to file a Rule 3 5 m o t ion only where the defendant has made a substantial thresh old showing that the government has refused based on an “unconstitutional motive.” United States v. Sneed , 63 F.3d 381, 388 n . 6 ( 5 th C ir. 1995). Martinez did not allege or demonstrate any unconstitutional motive that might have permitted the court to review the refusal to file a Rule 35(b) motion. The motion to compel was thus “an unauthorized m o t i o n which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain,” because the “motion and situation do not fit any provision” of the Rule. United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 1 4 2 ( 5 th C ir. 1994). Accordingly, we AFFIRM on the alternative grounds that the district cou rt l acked jurisdiction to grant the motion. See id.

2 Case: 10-31100 Document: 00511590692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2011
THE CURRITUCK ASSOCIATES - RESIDENTIAL PARTNERSHIP, a North Carolina general partnership, Plaintiff v. Ray E. HOLLOWELL, Jr., d/b/a Shallowbag Bay Development Company, Defendant v. KITTY HAWK ENTERPRISES, INC., Third-Party Defendant. SHALLOWBAG BAY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff v. THE CURRITUCK ASSOCIATES - RESIDENTIAL PARTNERSHIP, Defendant.

No. 528A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 31, 2006.

George R. Ragsdale, Walter L. Tippett, Jr., Raleigh, for Hollowell & Shallowbag Bay Dev.

J. Nicholas Ellis, Rocky Mount, for Currituck Associates.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants (Ray E. Hollowell, Jr. and Shallowbag Bay Development Co., LLC) on the 20th day of January 2006 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N. C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 31st day of January 2006."

Justice MARTIN recused.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 11 41 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 2: 07 -cr- 00 35 0- IPJ -PWG-1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us CARM ISE MATTHEW S, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 21 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, HILL , andALARCON,* Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ * Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc on, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by desig nation.Thi s i s an ap pe al fro m a twen ty-fou r m on th sen te nc e im po se d upo n C arm is e Mat th ews by the di st ric t co urt fo r vi ol at in g t he co nd it io ns of h is supe rv is ed rel eas e. Mat th ews cla im s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt p la in ly erredby fail in g t o p ro vi de sp eci fic writ te n re as on s fo r hi s s en te nc e, whi ch ex ceed s t he ran ge su gg es te d b y th e Ch ap te r 7 p ol ic y

st at em en ts to th e Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s, i n h is jud gm en t ac co rd in g t o t he di ct at es of the st atut e, 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( c)(2 ). W e ag ree. The st atut e rea ds : The co urt, atth e ti m e o f se nt en ce, s ha ll st at e in op enco urt t he reas on s fo r it s i m po si ti on of t he pa rti cu la r se nt en ce, an d, i f th e se nt en ce . . . is no t o f th e k in d, o r is ou ts id e th e ran ge , des cri be d i n s ub se ct io n (a )(4 ), th e sp eci fic reas on forth e im po si ti onof asen te nc e d iff eren t fr om

th at de sc rib ed , whi ch reas on s m us t al so be st at edwit h s pe ci fic ity in th e writ te n o rd er o f jud gm en t an d c omm it m en t . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( c)(2 ). W e h av e rev ie wedth e rec or d i n t hi s ap pe al , th e b rie fs an d t he arg um en ts of
co un se l. By fai li ng to pro vi de writ te n re as on s fo r a s en te nc e ex ceed in g t he st atut ory gu id el in es , we fin d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt p la in ly erredby fail in g t o abi de by the term s o f th e st atut e. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma ng ar oo , 50 4 F .3d13 50 , 13 54 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . W e v acat e th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co urt fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f pr ov id in g awrit te n a ndsp eci fic st at em en t

2of

th e rea so ns forit s upwa rdde pa rtu re i n M atth ews ’ se nt en ce p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( c)(2 ). VACATED andREMANDED with in st ru ct io ns .

3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8129

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLARENCE SHELDON JUPITER, a/k/a Star, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-4-H) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 25, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Sheldon Jupiter, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Clarence Sheldon Jupiter appeals the district court’s order denying his “motion to correct illegal sentence and remit fine.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jupiter , No. CR-93-4-H (W.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2001). We deny Jupiter’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-21114 Conference Calendar

JOE HENRY MACK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DR. B.M. VINCENT; F.E. FIGUEROA; M. BROCK; L. ARNOLD; DR. KOVACS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CV-2548

- - - - - - - - - - August 23, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joe Henry Mack, Texas prisoner # 671331, appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo under the same standards applied in the district court. Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp. , 936 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991). Summary judgment is proper when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, “‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party isNo. 00-21114 - 2 - entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Mack has failed to shown a genuine issue for trial that the prison staff was deliberately indifferent to his medical condition. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). Similarly, Mack has failed to show a genuine issue for trial that prison officials subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment because of his cell or work assignments. See Wilson v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Theodore PITTMAN, Jr.

No. 694P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2005.

Marilyn G. Ozer, Chapel Hill, for Theodore Pittman.

Howard S. Boney, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of December 2005 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed pending the determination of the State's Petition for Discretionary Review by order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of December 2005."
LINCOLN MEDICAL CENTER v. NORTH CAROLINA INS. GUAR. ASS'N

No. COA05-231

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Lincoln (04CVS134).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
        32.2
  
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of CALI Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
        10-K for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned certifies,
        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.
 **CALI
                  HOLDINGS, INC.**Date: September
                  26, 2005
                By:
                /s/ Donald
                  M. SteinDonald
                  M. SteinChief
                  Financial
                  Officer
STATE v. Alden Jerome HARDEN.

No. 427A94-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 18, 2005.

Nora Henry Hargrove, Margaret Creasy Ciardella, Hampstead, CA, for Alden Jerome Harden.

Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of October 2005 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 20th day of October 2005 to file and serve his/her response *269with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of October 2005."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK SEP High Risk Multi-Center Clinical Study Cooperative Agreement U01 & U34.                    

*Date:*                         July 28, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Cheryl Nordstrom, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, NIDDK/Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Room 7013, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-6711,                         *cheryl.nordstrom@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 1, 2022. 

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-14475 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# Official Journal L 57/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 57 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6327 February 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 57

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6327 February 2020

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | BUDGETS |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2020/227 of the European Union’s general budget for the financial year 2020 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

BUDGETS

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2020/227 of the European Union’s general budget for the financial year 2020

1

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Any revenue provided for in Article 21(2) and (3) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.

Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

Budgetary remarks are only executable insofar as they do not modify or extend the scope of an existing legal base, impinge on the administrative autonomy of institutions and can be covered by available resources (as indicated in the annex to the executability letter dated 28 October 2015).

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Independent Auditors' Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Municipal High Income Fund Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Municipal High Income Fund Inc. (Fund) for the year ended
October 31, 2002, we considered its internal control, including
control activities for safeguarding securities, in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing
our opinion on the financial statements and to comply with the
requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal
control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts that would be
material in relation to the financial statements being audited
may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees
in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
However, we noted no matters involving internal control and its
operation, including controls for safeguarding securities that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of October
31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Directors of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.


                                                  KPMG LLP

New York, New York
December 11, 2002
48418 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2022 / UA: Reg Flex Agenda 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 

BOARD 

29 CFR Parts 101 to 103 

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory 

and Deregulatory Actions 

AGENCY: National Labor Relations 

Board. 

ACTION: Semiannual regulatory agenda. 

SUMMARY: The following agenda of the 

National Labor Relations Board is 

published in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

The complete Unified Agenda is 

available online at www.reginfo.gov. 

Publication in the Federal Register is 

mandated only for regulatory flexibility 

agendas required under the RFA. 

Because the RFA does not require 

regulatory flexibility agendas for the 

regulations proposed and issued by the 

Board, the Board’s agenda appears only 

on the internet at www.reginfo.gov. 

The Board’s agenda refers to 

www.regulations.gov, the Government 

website at which members of the public 

can find, review, and comment on 

Federal rulemakings that are published 

in the Federal Register and open for 

comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information concerning the 

regulatory actions listed in the agenda, 

contact Farah Z. Qureshi, Deputy 

Executive Secretary, National Labor 

Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, 

Washington, DC 20570; telephone 202– 

273–1949, TTY/TDD 1–800–315–6572; 

email Farah.Qureshi@nlrb.gov. 

Farah Z. Qureshi, 

Deputy Executive Secretary. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD—PROPOSED RULE STAGE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. 

360 .................... Joint Employer ................................................................................................................................................. 3142–AA21 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 

BOARD (NLRB) 

Proposed Rule Stage 

360. Joint Employer [3142–AA21] 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 156 

Abstract: The National Labor 

Relations Board will engage in 

rulemaking on the standard for 

determining whether two employers, as 

defined in section 2(2) of the National 

Labor Relations Act (Act), are a joint 

employer under the Act. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM .................. 07/00/22 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: Yes. 

Agency Contact: Farah Qureshi, 

National Labor Relations Board, 1015 

Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570, 

Phone: 202 273–1949, Email: 

farah.qureshi@nlrb.gov. 

Roxanne Rothschild, National Labor 

Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, 

Washington, DC 20570, Phone: 202 273– 

2917, Email: roxanne.rothschild@

nlrb.gov. 

RIN: 3142–AA21 

[FR Doc. 2022–14619 Filed 8–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7545–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
exv10w01



 






Exhibit 10.01




News
Release





	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	Company Contacts:
	 	John Kispert

Chief Financial Officer

(408) 875-6224

john.kispert@kla-tencor.com

	 
	 
	 	 	 	Cary Halsted (Investment Community)

Vice President, Investor Relations

(408) 875-4094

cary.halsted@kla-tencor.com

	 
	 
	 	 	 	Uma Subramaniam (Media)

Director, Corporate Communications

(408) 875-5473

uma.subramaniam@kla-tencor.com

	 
	 
	 	Agency
Contact:      
	 	Jane Evans-Ryan (Media)

Business Press Director, MCA

(650) 968-8900

jryan@mcapr.com







FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE




KLA-TENCOR DECLARES REGULAR CASH DIVIDEND FOR FIRST QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 2006



SAN JOSE, Calif., Aug. 4, 2005 — KLA-Tencor Corporation (NASDAQ: KLAC) today announced that
its board of directors has declared a quarterly cash dividend of $.12 per share on its
common stock payable on
September 1, 2005 to KLA-Tencor stockholders of record on August 15, 2005.



About KLA-Tencor: KLA-Tencor is the world leader in yield management and process control
solutions for semiconductor manufacturing and related industries. Headquartered in San
Jose, Calif., the company has sales and service offices around the world. An S&P 500
company, KLA-Tencor was named one of the Best Managed Companies in America for 2005 by
Forbes Magazine and is the only company in the semiconductor industry to receive the
accolade for this year. KLA-Tencor is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol
KLAC. Additional information about the company is available on the Internet at
http://www.kla-tencor.com




###