alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Lionel STAFFORD.

No. 286P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 31, 2006.

Robert Lionel Stafford, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 26th day of May 2006 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Haywood County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 31st day of May 2006."
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 11, 2006.

C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of August 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Deliver Transcripts:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 9th day of October 2006 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of August 2006.
1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1876

___________ Joeffre Kolosky, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. City of Brooklyn Park; City of * Brooklyn Center; City of Burnsville, * [UNPUBLISHED] City of Savage; Dakota County, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 12, 2009 Filed: June 22, 2009

___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Joeffre Kolosky appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. After denovo review, see Olsen v. Mukasey , 541 F.3d 827, 830 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied , 77 U.S.L.W. 3606 (U.S. May 4, 2009), we conclude the dismissal of Kolo sky’s complaint was proper for the reasons-2- stated by the district court. We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Kolosky’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, because Kolosky failed to demonstrate that he had insufficient resources to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
**Exhibit 4.4**

CONSENT OF ANTOINE YASSA

  Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28,  2010 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission.

  I participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian  National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of  an independent technical study, completed in 2009 (the “Technical Study”) concerning  mineralized material in the Coulon property for the Company. Portions of the Technical Study  are summarized under the heading “Item III– Description of the Business – 3.7 Coulon Property– 3.7.5 – Exploration and Drilling” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the yearended February 28, 2010 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit isincorporated by reference therein). I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing writtendisclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing headingand to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated byreference in the Annual Report.

 

  Very truly yours,

 

*/s/ Antoine Yassa*  Name: Antoine Yassa, P. Geo.

 

  May 19, 2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

GINO CARLUCCI, a.k.a. Gene David Odice,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 10183

D.C. No. 2:10

- cr

- 00464

- KHV

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Kathryn H. Vratil, District Judge, Presiding **

Submitted March 13, 2018 * * *

Before: LEAVY , M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Gino Carlucci appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33

. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

* * * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 10183

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carlucci’s Rule 33

motion

. See United States v. Hinkson , 585 F.3d 1247, 1259 (9th Cir. 2009) (en

banc) (stating standard of review)

. First, Carlucci’s evidence concerning how

Robert Gar

back came into possession of the two watches might be admissi ble to

impeach Garback, but do es not undermine the evidence that Carlucci obtained the

watches from Gar

back under false pretenses

. See id. at 1257 (newly discovered

evidence does not support a new trial if it is “merely impeaching”). Second, the

record does not show that a new trial would probably result in an acquittal. See id.

There is significant evidence in the record implicat ing Carlucci in the conspiracy to

commit money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the United States , and willful

filing of a false tax return

. See United States v. Jackson , 209 F.3d 1103, 1106

- 07

(9th Cir. 2000) (affirming denial of motion for new trial where new evidence

would not have created a reasonable doubt)

. On this record , Carlucci also cannot

show that the government violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland , 373

U.S. 83 (1963), and Napue v. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 (1959)

.

Finally, insofar as Carlucci is challenging the denial of his motion for

appointment of counsel, he has not shown that t he district court abused its

discretion. See United States v. Harrington , 410 F.3d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 2005)

.

AFFIRMED.
exv10w3



 






Exhibit 10.3




IXIA

Summary of Compensation Arrangements

for Named Executive Officers




     Set forth below is a summary of the compensation paid by Ixia (the “Company”) to the executive
officers of the Company who were named in the Summary Compensation Table appearing in the Proxy
Statement relating to the Company’s 2005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (collectively, the “Named
Executive Officers”).



     Base Salaries. As approved by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors
on April 7, 2005 (except as otherwise indicated below), effective January 1, 2005, the Named
Executive Officers receive base salaries in the amounts indicated below:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Name and Position	 	2005 Base Salary Amount
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Errol Ginsberg, President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	$	346,500	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Thomas B. Miller, Chief Financial Officer
	 	$	224,700	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	David Anderson, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Sales
and Business Development Operations
	 	$	250,000	*
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Robert W. Bass, Executive Vice President, Operations
	 	$	225,740,	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Joseph A. Noble, Vice President, Asia Pacific Sales
	 	$	120,000	*








 




			
	*	 	Such amount was approved by the Compensation Committee on April 2, 2004.





     The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors may adjust the foregoing base salaries
from time to time as the Committee deems appropriate. Such adjustments are generally made
annually.



     Incentive Awards. The Named Executive Officers are also eligible to participate in the
Company’s cash and equity incentive compensation plans pursuant to the terms of such plans;
provided, however, that Messrs. Anderson and Noble are eligible to receive sales
commissions in lieu of participation in the Company’s cash bonus plans. Such cash and equity
incentive plans, and the forms of awards thereunder providing for the material terms of such plans,
are included as exhibits to the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



     Other Compensation. Named Executive Officers who elect to participate in the Company’s 401(k)
Plan are entitled to receive certain Company matching contributions under the 401(k) Plan. Named
Executive Officers are also eligible to receive such other compensation as may from time to time be
approved by the Compensation Committee.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C ORDELL R

A B ON, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. DEB B IE ASUNC ION, W arde n,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-55348 D.C . No. 5:13-c v-01977-AB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia André B irotte , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2016 ** B e fore : LEAVY, B ER ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r C orde l l R a

bon a p pe a ls pro se from the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s pe tition a s untim e ly . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253. W e re vie w de novo thedism issa l of a se c t ion 2254 ha

be a s pe tition on sta

tute of lim ita

tions grounds, se e Bills v . C lark , 628 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd we va c ate and re m and. 

# FIL ED N OV 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).R a

bon c onte nds tha

t his illite ra c y , de v e lopm e nta l disa

bility , a nd m e nta l disorde r e ntitlehim

to e quita ble tolling. The

distric t c o urt de te rm ine d tha

t a lthough Ra

bon suffe re d from

le arning disa

bilitie s a n d othe r m e n ta l im

pa irm e nts, the y we re not the“ but for” c a use of his de l ay

in filing a

ha be a s pe tition. As c urre ntly de ve l ope d, howe ve r, the re c ord doe s not support the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha

t R a bon wa s a ble to a ppre c iat e the ne e d to file a tim e l y se c tion 2254 pe tition. “ [M ] ore fa c tua l de ve lopm e nt is re quire d be fore we c an sa y tha t [R a bon] wa s or wa s not pre c lude d from filing his pet ition by

re a son of m e nta l im

pa irm e nt.” Law s v . Lamarque , 351 F.3d 919, 924 (9th C i r. 2003). W e , the re fore , va c ate and re m and to thedistric t c ourt for furthe r fa c tua l de ve lopm e nt. On re m and, the distric t c o urt should c onside r a p p ointing c ounse l for a ppe lla nt a n d sha l l orde r any

disc ove ry , e xpa

nsion of there c ord, or e vide ntia ry he aring ne c e ssa

ry to de te rm ine whe t

he r R a bon is e ntitle d

to e quita b le tolling ba se d on m e nta l im

p a irm e nt. Se e id. at 924-25. W e tre at R a

bon’ s a dditiona l a

rgum e nts a s a

m otion to e xpa

nd the c e rtific ate of a ppe a l a bility . So tre at e d, the m otion is denie d . Se e 9th C ir. R . 22-1(e ); Hiiv ala v . W ood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th C ir. 1999). V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D.

1 5 - 5 5 3 4 8 2
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-61066 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KENNY FRANKLIN EDMONSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:01-CR-27-1

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kenny Franklin Edmonson appeals the revocation of the term of supervised release imposed after his 2002 conviction for access device fraud. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he violated conditions of supervised release either by failing to report to his probation officer or by committing another crime. Uncontested evidence showed that Edmonson was required to report to his probation officer in person but repeatedly failedNo. 04-61066 -2- to do so. Edmonson has also failed to show that the district court incorrectly applied Mississippi law or made clearly erroneous factual findings by concluding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Edmonson committed a Mississippi crime by writing at least one check on an account that was closed. See United States v. McCormick , 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Smith , 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 713 (2005) . The district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking supervised release. See McCormick , 54 F.3d 219. Edmonson has abandoned his contention that his sentence violated the rule of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 42258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15078]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11783]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Van Gogh in America'' 
Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Van Gogh in America'' at the 
Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, Michigan, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural 
significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display 
within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. 
I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published 
in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#14677177607d7b7a2620212d5467607560713a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f4879197809d9b9ac6c0c1cdb48780958091da939b82">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.

Stacy E. White,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-15078 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.2



Exhibit 10.2


MEMORANDUM OF A RETAINER AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES



THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the March 7, 2005.


B E T W E E N :


	 	
Hovington Pellerin Simard, general partnership, having a business place at 460 Saint-Gabriel, suite 21, city of Montreal, province of Québec, H2Y 2Z9

	 
	 	
(Hereinafter referred to as the "Attorneys")

	 
	 	 	
- and - 

	 
	 	
VisualMED Clinical Solutions Corp. (formerly Ancona Mining Corp.), a corporation governed by the laws of Nevada having a business place at 1035 Laurier Street West, Outremont, H2V 2L1, herein represented by its Chairman of the Board, Gérard Dab, duly authorize as he so declares;

	 
	 
	 	
(Hereinafter referred to as the "Company")

	 





RECITALS


WHEREAS during the years 2004 and 2005 the Company has retained the services of the Attorneys to facilitate the coordination of the legal process for the purchase of some assets of VisualMed Clinical System Corp. ("VSMD") by the Company, and a private placement.  



	EMPLOYMENT

A.     The Company hereby as agreed to employ the Attorneys who were responsible to draft and prepare the documents pertaining to the purchase agreement and the documents related to the private placement.


B.     The Attorneys have hereby accepted such offer and have agreed to serve in such capacity.




	PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT

This Agreement has begin in year 2004, at the first moment the Attorneys were approach by the representatives of the Company, the Effective Date, and shall continue up until their services are no longer needed.


 

 







	COMPENSATION

The Company as accepted to compensate the Attorneys as follow, for their  services rendered up until now, an amount of 37,500.00SD, payable in 15,000 restricted Common shares of the company.



	TRANSFER

The Attorneys have requested, for a reason of managing effectiveness, that the payment of 15,000 restricted shares be transferred to HPS Inc., their managing entity.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Memorandum of an agreement as of the day and date first above written.


SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of:


	
/s/ Illegible
	
/s/ Claude Pellering

	
Witness
	
Claude Pellerin, Attorney at Law

	 	
Hovington Pellerin Simard, general partnership

	 	

/s/ Gerard Dab

	 	
Gerard Dab,

	 	
VisualMed Clinical Solution Corp.






 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5729 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5729

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2008

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs to provide comprehensive health care to children of 
    Vietnam veterans born with Spina Bifida, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Spina Bifida Health Care Program 
Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS TO CHILDREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS BORN WITH SPINA 
              BIFIDA.

    (a) Provision of Comprehensive Health Care.--Section 1803(a) of 
title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ``such health care 
as the Secretary determines is needed by the child for the spina bifida 
or any disability that is associated with such condition'' and 
inserting ``health care under this section''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to care furnished after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 20, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.5

[BELDEN CDT LOGO]                                      BELDEN CDT INC.
                                                       7701 FORSYTH BOULEVARD
                                                       SUITE 800
                                                       ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63105
                                                       TELEPHONE: (314) 854-8000
                                                       FACSIMILE: (314) 854-8001

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

May 17, 2005

Mr. Richard K. Reece
21 Ballas Court
Town & Country, MO 63131

Dear Ricky:

The terms of your retention award letter agreement (the "Retention Letter
Agreement"), dated as of June 28, 2004, are amended as follows: If you were to
elect to leave the Company in the event you were no longer reporting directly to
Mr. Cunningham and if your departure from the Company occurs before July 15,
2006, then you will receive the last one-third of your cash award and restricted
stock award (payable under the Retention Letter Agreement) on such date.

BELDEN CDT INC.

By: /s/ Kevin Bloomfield
    -------------------------
    Kevin Bloomfield

Agreed:

    /s/ Richard K. Reece
    -------------------------
    Richard K. Reece
Order entered June 29, 2018 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00400-CV 

IN RE PRG DALLAS, ASC., L.P. 

Original Proceeding from the 95th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-04958 

ORDER 

Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we CONDITIONALLY GRANT relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus. We DIRECT the trial court to issue, within twenty-one (21) days 

of the date of this opinion, a written order quashing Daniel Chambers’ deposition until a party 

seeking such a deposition serves a Chapter 74 expert report. We further ORDER the trial court 

to file with this Court, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, a certified copy of its 

order(s) issued in compliance with this order and with the Court’s opinion of this date. Should 

the trial court fail to comply with this order, the writ will issue. We ORDER real parties in 

interest Anne Looney, Jerry Shipley, and Professional Compounding Centers of America to bear 

the costs, if any, of this original proceeding. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE