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

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JEFFREY SCOTT TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-1350 (D.C. Nos. 1:16-C V-01210-JLK and 1:13-CR-00400-JLK-1) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , MURPHY , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Defendant Jeffrey Taylor filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 collaterally attacking his sentence. He argued that the calculation of his sentencing guideline range had relied on the residual clause of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) and that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague because it uses essentially the same language as the language in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)( b), which was held to be unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States , 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The district court denied the motion but granted a certificate of appealability. We AFFIRM the

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 13, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 decision below. In Beckles v. United States , No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781 (S.Ct. Mar. 6, 2017), the Supreme Court held that the unconstitutional-vagu eness holding in Johnson does not apply to the residual clause in the sent encing guidelines. Th e other issues raised by the parties are moot.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 625/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 625/2013 of 27 June 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 625/2013                     

# of 27 June 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 June 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
Exhibit 32.2



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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter Ended September 7, 2004 (the Report) by ClubCorp, Inc. (Registrant), the undersigned hereby certifies that; to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Jeffery P. MayerJeffrey P. MayerChief Financial Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 493/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 493/2013 of 28 May 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 493/2013                     

# of 28 May 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 May 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
COLTRANE v. MITTELMAN.

No. COA06-15.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 19, 2006.

Certification Date January 8, 2007.

Appeal from Guilford (04CVS11141).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 719/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 719/2013 of 25 July 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 719/2013                     

# of 25 July 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 July 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
exv10w22



 






EXHIBIT 10.22




AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN OF ANCHORBANK, FSB




     BY THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, the Amended and Restated AnchorBank, fsb Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:




	 	1.	 	Section 3.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following sentence
immediately after the first sentence of such section:
	 
	 	 	 	Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee may, in its sole discretion, provide
for the commencement of the payment of a Participant’s annual retirement benefit
equal to his or her Accrued Benefit at such time following a Participant’s attaining
his or her Normal Retirement Date and before a Participant’s retirement from the
Company and the Bank as the Committee may deem appropriate.
	 
	 	2.	 	All other provisions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed this 25th day of September 2003.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ANCHORBANK, FSB

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ MARK D TIMMERMAN
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Mark D Timmerman  	 
	 	 	Title:  	Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 OCT-28-2000
<CASH>                                             7,912
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     19,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (1,820)
<INVENTORY>                                      400,219
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 439,258
<PP&E>                                           385,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (167,679)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   673,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            298,824
<BONDS>                                           44,916
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             324
<OTHER-SE>                                       129,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     673,667
<SALES>                                        1,078,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,080,482
<CGS>                                            794,492
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    794,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2,131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                14,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (6,127)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (6,127)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   18,631
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      12,504
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.39



</TABLE>
exv10w7



 







Exhibit 10.7




Tekelec




Summary of Compensation for Non-Employee Members

of the Board of Directors and its Committees

(Effective April 1, 2005)




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	1.	 	 	Board of Directors
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Quarterly retainer (except Chairman)
	 	$	12,500	 
	 	 	 	 	Chairman’s quarterly retainer
	 	$	15,000	 
	 	 	 	 	Fee for attending meeting in excess of four hours
	 	$	2,000	 
	 	 	 	 	Fee for attending meeting of four hours or less
	 	$	1,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	2.	 	 	Compensation Committee
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Quarterly retainer (except Chairman)
	 	$	1,250	 
	 	 	 	 	Chairman’s quarterly retainer
	 	$	4,000	 
	 	 	 	 	Fee for attending a meeting
	 	$	750	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	3.	 	 	Audit Committee
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Quarterly retainer (except Chairman)
	 	$	2,000	 
	 	 	 	 	Chairman’s quarterly retainer
	 	$	5,000	 
	 	 	 	 	Fee for attending a meeting
	 	$	800	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	4.	 	 	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Quarterly retainer (except Chairman)
	 	$	1,000	 
	 	 	 	 	Chairman’s quarterly retainer
	 	$	1,500	 
	 	 	 	 	Fee for attending a meeting
	 	$	750	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	5.	 	 	Corporate Development Committee
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Quarterly retainer (except Chairman)
	 	$	1,000	 
	 	 	 	 	Chairman’s quarterly retainer
	 	$	1,500	 
	 	 	 	 	Fee for attending a meeting in excess of four hours
	 	$	1,000	 
	 	 	 	 	Fee for attending a meeting of four hours or less
	 	$	750	 






     In addition to cash compensation, non-employee directors receive under the
Company’s Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (the
“Director Plan”) (i) a grant of stock options upon their initial election to the
Board of Directors and (ii) annual grants of stock options upon their
re-election to the Board. The Director Plan is included as Exhibit 10.1 to the
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2004.



* * *
STATE v. Errol Duke MOSES.

No. 574A97-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 22, 2006.

Steven Arbogast, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of May 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Errol Duke Moses) shall have up to and including the *9529th day of June 2006 to file and serve his/her Petition for Writ of Certiorari with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of May 2006."
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00611-CV

In re Henry Gonzales, Jr., Appellant

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Henry Gonzales filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the

Honorable Karen Sage to set aside her order removing court-appointed trial counsel as his attorney

of record. After her removal of trial counsel, Judge Sage recused herself from these proceedings,

and the Honorable Bob Perkins was assigned to preside over the underlying case. We abated this

mandamus petition to give Judge Perkinsthe opportunity to review Gonzales’s underlying complaint.

See In re Gonzales, No. 03-12-00611-CV, 2012 WL5834881, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 16,

2012, orig. proceeding).

Judge Perkins has since provided this Court with an order, signed on December 6,

2012, granting Gonzales’s motion to set aside Judge Sage’s order removing court-appointed trial

counsel. Since Gonzales has received the relief requested in his mandamus petition, we dismiss the

petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See In re Luna, 317 S.W.3d 484, 484 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

2010, orig. proceeding).
__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Field

Filed: January 17, 2013

2
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3201 

To reauthorize the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act for 

mosquito-borne disease prevention and control. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 26, 2008 

Mr. GREGG (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and 

Health Act for mosquito-borne disease prevention and 

control. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mosquito Abatement 

5 for Safety and Health Reauthorization Act of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MOSQUITO ABATEMENT 

7 FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT. 

8 Section 317S of the Public Health Service Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 247b–21) is amended— 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3201 IS

1 (1) in subsection (b)(2), by striking subpara2 graph (D) and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(D) is located in a State that has received 

4 a grant under subsection (a) or that dem5 onstrates to the Secretary that the control pro6 gram is consistent with existing State mosquito 

7 control plans or policies.’’; and 

8 (2) in subsection (f)(1), strike ‘‘2003’’ and all 

9 that follows through the period and insert ‘‘2009, 

10 and such sums as may be necessary for each of fis11 cal years 2010 through 2013.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
# L_2012313EN.01002001.xml

| 13.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 313/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 313/20

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 976/2012 of 23 October 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 165/2011 providing for deductions from certain mackerel quotas allocated to Spain in 2011 and subsequent years on account of overfishing in 2010

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 294 of 24 October 2012
  )

On page 4, Annex, in the header of the table of the modified Annex, sixth column:

for:

‘Multiplying factor of Article 105(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (overfishing (*) 2)’,

read:

‘Multiplying factor of Article 105(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (overfishing × 2)’.

---