alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opini o n

should not be published and is not precedent except under the l imited circumstances

set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-41095

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO NIETO ZEPEDA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-00-CR-121-1

May 16, 2002

Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Armando Nieto Zepeda appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with

intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§1 United States v. Rodriguez , 43 F.3d 117, 126 (5th Cir. 1995).

2 United States v. Reyes

, 239 F.3d 722, 739 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 533

U.S. 961 (2001), and 122 S.Ct. 156 (2001).

3 United States v. Chavez , 119 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir. 1997).

2 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He asserts that he was entrapped as a matter

of law and that the district court erred at sentencing because it did not realize that it had

the authority to depart from the guidelines based u pon his incomplete entrapment

defense.

At trial, Nieto presented an entrapment defense but it was rejected by the jury.

We therefore review his claim that the defense should have been allowed for

sufficiency of the evidence. 1 We will only reverse “if no rational jury could have found

beyond a reason a ble doubt either (1) lack of government inducement or (2)

predisposition to commit the charged crime.” 2 Our careful review of the record reveals

that Nieto was predisposed to commit the crime in question. 3 Accordingly, he was not

entrapped as a matter of law and we affirm his conviction.

Nieto also contents that the district court misconstrued his motion for downward

departure and did not realize that it had the authority to depart based on his incomplete

entrapm ent defense. While the government concedes that the district court

misconstrued Nieto’s motion, this confusion was caused by defense counsel who then4 United States v. Anderson , 174 F.3d 515, 525 (5th Cir. 1999).

5 United States v. Calverly , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

3 failed to either clarify his request or object to the district court’s ruling. We therefore

review Nieto’s claim for plain error. 4 Nieto has failed to demonstrate that his

substantial rights have been affected by the district court’s error and has, therefore,

failed to show plain error. 5

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the district court are AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Quentin Taiwan WILLIAMSON.

No. 139P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Quentin T. Williamson.

*772Thomas J. Ziko, Special Deputy Attorney General, William D. Kenerly, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th day of March 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 4th day of May 2006."
The CURRITUCK ASSOCIATES-RESIDENTIAL PARTNERSHIP, a North Carolina general partnership v. Ray E. HOLLOWELL, Jr., d/b/a Shallowbag Bay Development Company v. Kitty Hawk Enterprises, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. Shallowbag Bay Development Company, LLC v. The Currituck Associates-Residential Partnership.

No. 528A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 16, 2005.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 166 N.C.App. 17, 601 S.E.2d 256 (2004), affirming an order entered on 22 May 2003 by Judge W. Russell Duke, Jr., in Superior Court, Dare County. Heard in the Supreme Court 20 April 2005.

Poyner & Spruill LLP, by J. Nicholas Ellis, Rocky Mount, for appellee.

Ragsdale Liggett PLLC, by George R. Ragsdale and Walter L. Tippett, Jr., Raleigh, for appellants Ray E. Hollowell, Jr. and Shallowbag Bay Development Company.

PER CURIAM.

Justice MARTIN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. *See Crawford v. Commercial Union**494*Midwest Ins. Co.,*356 N.C. 609, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002); *Robinson v. Byrd,*356 N.C. 608, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002).

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4390

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT C. HUNDERTMARK, JR., a/k/a Robert

Hundertmark, a/k/a Barry Scheckman, a/k/a

Detective Miller,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CR-02-125)

Submitted: October 3, 2003 Decided: October 23, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jon M. Babineau, SAUNDERS, BABINEAU & BREWBAKER, L.L.C., Suffolk,

Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,

Robert J. Krask, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert C. Hundertmark, Jr., appeals his conviction and

sentence on four counts of knowingly and willfully threatening to

kill, injure, and intimidate with an instrument of interstate

commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) (2000), and three

counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (2000). 

On appeal, Hundertmark asserts the evidence was insufficient

to sustain his convictions. First, he asserts his alleged

statements did not constitute true threats. Second, he asserts the

Government failed to prove he made the statements in question. To

determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support a

conviction, “[t]he verdict of the jury must be sustained if there

is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the

Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,

80 (1942). We are of opinion there was such evidence in this case.

Hundertmark’s arguments are meritless. The Government’s evidence

was sufficient to establish he made threatening statements in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)

(2000). United States v. Spruill, 118 F.3d 221, 228 (4th Cir.

1997); United States v. Darby, 37 F.3d 1059, 1065 (4th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm Hundertmark’s conviction and sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE v. MORRISON

No. COA04-1000.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 20, 2005.

Certification Date October 10, 2005.

Appeal from Wake (03CRS86370, 03CRS86371).

Case reported without published opinion. Remanded for resentencing.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO****SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of BIO-key International, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Michael W. DePasquale, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)                     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| BIO-kEY  INTERNATIONAL, INC. |                       |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------|
| By:                               | /s/ MICHAEL W. DEPASQUALE  |   |
|                              | Michael W. DePasquale      |   |
|                              | Co-Chief Executive Officer |   |
| Date: April 11, 2006              |                       |

 

----
### Appendix 7713 H ANSEN B EVERAGE v. N ATIONALB EVERAGE7714 H ANSEN B EVERAGE v. N ATIONALB EVERAGE
STATE of North Carolina v. Jeffrey BOWES.

No. 394A03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 7, 2005.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 159 N.C.App. 18, 583 *503S.E.2d 294 (2003), affirming an order entered 10 December 2001 by Judge Charles M. Vincent in District Court, Pitt County. On 5 February 2004, the Supreme Court retained the State's notice of appeal upon substantial constitutional questions pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(1). Heard in the Supreme Court 8 November 2004. On 16 December 2004, the Court allowed the State's petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Determined on the briefs without further oral argument pursuant to N.C. R.App. P. 30(f).

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Jeffrey R. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles.

The Robinson Law Firm, P.A., by Leslie S. Robinson, and Law Offices of Keith A. Williams, P.A., by Keith A. Williams, Greenville, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the appeal is dismissed as moot.

DISMISSED.

Justices MARTIN and WAINWRIGHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 16-2536

_____________

CHRISTINE BERNAT,

Appellant

v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WILLIAM HAUCK, 

administrator of the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women; ERICK MELGAR, 

all individually and in their capacity as a current and/or State Correctional Officer; 

JANETTE BENNETT, all individually and in their capacity as a current and/or former 

State Correctional Officer; ALFRED E. SMALLS, all individually and in their capacity 

as a current and/or former State Correctional Officer; JEFFREY S. ELLIS, all 

individually and in their capacity as a current and/or former State Correctional Officer; 

LANCE K. JOHNSON, all individually and in their capacity as a current and/or former 

State Correctional Officer; JOHN DOE 1-10; JOHN DOE ENTITY 1-10

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 12-cv-02649)

District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp

_____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

June 8, 2017

Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and FUENTES Circuit Judges.

(Filed June 20, 2017)

____________

JUDGMENT ORDER

____________

Following the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on October 28, 2015 as 

to defendants State of New Jersey Department of Correction, William Hauck, Jeffrey S. 
Ellis, and Lance K. Johnson and entries of stipulations of dismissal as to defendants 

Alfred E. Smalls and Erick Melgar on April 19, 2016, plaintiff Christine Bernat filed this 

appeal. 

Bernat requested entry of default against defendant Jannette Bennett earlier in the 

litigation, on October 24, 2013. The clerk entered default as to Bennett the following 

day. However, no default judgment was ever entered as to Bennett. 

This Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties. The parties agreed 

that final judgment had not been entered against Bennett. Counsel for appellees also 

argued that the stipulations of dismissal as to Smalls and Melgar were not with prejudice 

and thus also do not constitute final judgments. 

Having reviewed the record below, the Court agrees that there is no final judgment 

as to Bennett and, thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will 

dismiss the appeal on that basis. The Court declines to make a ruling as to the finality of 

the claims against Smalls and Melgar as it is not necessary for the dismissal at this time. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that this appeal is 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The parties are to bear their own costs.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael A. Chagares

Circuit Judge

ATTEST: 

s/ Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

Dated: June 20, 2017
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 42166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15061]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1047-000.
    Applicants: NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various 
Releases eff 7-1-2022 to be effective 7/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/7/22.
    Accession Number: 20220707-5105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 8, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15061 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Melvin James HARDY.

No. 169A99-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Mark Kleinschmidt, Henderson Hill, Jacob H. Sussman, Charlotte, for Melvin Hardy.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 27th day of January 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17497 and #17498; MONTANA Disaster Number MT-00159]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of MONTANA (FEMA-4655-DR), dated 06/30/2022. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storm and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         06/10/2022 and continuing.
 DATES: Issued on 06/30/2022. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/29/2022. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/30/2023.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/30/2022, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*
                     Carbon, Park, Stillwater. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Montana: Big Horn, Gallatin, Golden Valley, Meagher, Sweet Grass, Yellowstone. Wyoming: Big Horn, Park. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.375Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.688Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.870Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.935Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.935Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17497 6 and for economic injury is 17498 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Joshua Barnes, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2022-14409 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.4 
  
 Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
  
 Effective May 23, 2005, each non-employee director of Markel Corporation (“Company”) will receive for services as
director an annual fee of $30,000, plus reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with attending meetings and training sessions attended at the request of the Company. All individual meeting fees were eliminated. 
  
 Non-employee directors are also eligible to participate, up to the total
amount of fees received by the director, in the Company’s Employee Stock Purchase and Bonus Plan (“Stock Plan”). Under the Stock Plan, amounts specified by a director are withheld from that director’s fees and forwarded to an
independent administrator who purchases shares of the Company’s Common Stock on behalf of the director participant. In addition, the Company provides a “bonus” of 10% of the net increase in shares purchased under the Stock Plan in a
calendar year. 
  
 The Company also offers loans to employees to
facilitate the purchase of shares under the Stock Plan. Effective July 30, 2002, directors may no longer receive new loans under the Stock Plan, and existing loans will continue in accordance with their terms in effect on that date. In connection
with the “grandfathered” loans for directors, the Company provides an incentive payment based on a five-year compound annual growth in book value (“Company Incentive Payment”) as follows: 
  

			
	 5 year Compound Annual
 Growth in Book Value

	 	 Company Incentive Payment
 as % of Original Loan Balance


	Under 15%	 	0%                
	15%	 	1.25%                
	16%	 	2.0%                
	17%	 	2.75%                
	18%	 	3.5%                
	19%	 	4.25%                
	20%	 	5%                
	21%	 	5.75%                
	22%	 	6.5%                
	23%	 	7.25%                
	24%	 	8.0%                
	25%	 	8.75%                
	Over 25%	 	Discretionary

  
 For these purposes, book value is
adjusted to exclude the benefits of issuing equity securities at prices above the preceding year-end book value per share and to exclude the goodwill amortization costs resulting from a transaction in which equity securities are issued. 

 
 Each non-employee director previously received a one-time award of 1,000 Restricted Stock
Units under the Company’s Omnibus Incentive Plan. Such awards vest ratably over a five-year period from the date of grant, although no shares will be issued until the end of five years. Upon vesting and issuance of previously granted restricted
stock unit 







 awards, or if a new non-employee director joins the Board of Directors, it is expected that the Board will approve new
awards of restricted stock units with the amount and terms of such awards to be determined at that time.
STATE v. GILMORE.

No. COA05-380.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 20, 2005.

Certification Date January 9, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (04CRS44314)

Case without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. SCOTT.

No. COA05-1639.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 18, 2006.

Certification Date August 7, 2006.

Appeal from Caldwell (05CRS5179).

Case without published opinion. Reversed.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 MarkWest Hydrocarbon,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, James G. Ivey, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: March 20, 2006 | By:    |   /s/JAMES G. IVEY        |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|                 |   |   James G. Ivey           |
|                 |   |   Chief Financial Officer |

 

This certificationis being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not beingfiled as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. Thiscertification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwisesubject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemedto be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except to the extent this Exhibit 32.2 isexpressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----