alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11033

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAED SAIF, also known as Mike

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-31-ALL

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Raed Saif has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Saif has filed a response. The record is

insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Saif’s claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on

direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 29, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11033

2

opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.”

United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record,

counsel’s brief, and Saif’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Saif’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is

DENIED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Raymond Alan GRIFFIN.

No. 322P15-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Raymond Alan Griffin, for Griffin, Raymond Alan.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th of October 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the *755following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
UMBERGER v. PIKE CORPORATION, et al.

No. 37PA16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 8, 2016.

Scott M. Tyler, Charlotte, for Pike Corporation.

Glenn E. Ketner, III, Charlotte, for Pike Corporation.

David G. Schiller, Raleigh, for Umberger, Annabelle, et al.

Paul R. Dickinson, Jr., Charlotte, for Lieberg, Collin.

Marc Ackerman, for Lieberg, Collin.

Richard A. Maniskas, for Lieberg, Collin.

Kurt F. Hausier, for Beickert, Edwin.

Brian D. Long, for Beickert, Edwin.

J. Daniel Albert, for Umberger, Annabelle, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of February 2016 by Defendant (Pike Corporation) to Consolidate Appeals:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of February 2016."
Thomas Robert MARRIOTT, Alice Banks Yeaman, John A. Wagner, Anita J. Sarbo, Timothy Morgan, Jerry L. Markatos, Joseph W. Jacob, Nancy Banks, Rachel Wilfert, Robert Graham, Patricia Kenlan, Elaine C. Chiosso, John W. Brooks, Deborah Wechsler, David Peterson, Judith Peterson, Anne R. Flash, William Flash, Karen Strazza Moore and William Moore, Plaintiffs v. CHATHAM COUNTY, A North Carolina County And A Body Corporate And Politic; Members of the Chatham County Board of Commissioners, In their Official Capacities: Bunkey Morgan, Chair; Tommy Emerson, Vice-Chair; Patrick Barnes; Allen Michael Cross; Carl H. Outz; Members of the Chatham County Planning Board, In their Official Capacities: Charles Eliason, Chair; Mark McBee, Vice-Chair; Paul McCoy; Martin Mason; Mary Nettles; Evelyn Cross; Sally Kost; Chris Walker; Clyde Harris; and Cecil Wilson, Defendants, and Polk-Sullivan, LLC, Chatham Partners, LLC, And Robert D. Swain, Defendant-Intervenors.

No. 57P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

J. Dickson Phillips, III, Chapel Hill, for Marriott et al.

Hayden J. Silver, III, Betsy Cooke, Raleigh, for Polk-Sullivan, et al.

Paul S. Messick, Jr., Burlington, for Chatham County, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 654 S.E.2d 13.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th day of February 2008 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals *123pursuant 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 26th day of August 2008."
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 20

- 14465
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
DEVIN FABIAN COLLINS,
Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

- Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:20

- cv

- 02278

- SDM

- JSS

____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14465 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 20

- 14465

Before N EWSOM , L UCK , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: The district court denied Devin Collins’s first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his 210

- month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) solely on the ground tha t Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019)

— which was decided while Collins’s direct appeal was still pending

— does n’t apply retroactively to initial § 2255 motions

. In Rehaif , the Supreme Court determined that for a § 922(g) offense, “the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” Id

. at 2200. Collins contends that the government never proved whether he knew the latter. In Seabrooks v. United States , we held that Rehaif “announced a new rule of substantive law that applies retroactively to .

. . initial § 2255 motion[s].” 32 F.4th 1375, 1383 ( 11th Cir. 2022) (per curiam) . Accordingly, we VACATE and REMAND to the distr ict court to decide Collins’s § 2255 motion under Rehaif and/or other grounds the parties may raise on remand

. USCA11 Case: 20-14465 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2



             FIRST AMENDMENT TO MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

        This FIRST AMENDMENT TO MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
("Amendment") dated as of September 11, 1998 is entered into by and between
DepoTech Corporation, a California corporation ("DepoTech"), and Pharmacia &
Upjohn S.p.A., an Italian corporation ("P&U").

        WHEREAS, DepoTech and P&U previously entered into that certain Marketing
and Distribution Agreement dated July 2, 1997 (the "Agreement"), which provides
for the amendment of the Agreement pursuant to Section 16.6; and

        WHEREAS, DepoTech and P&U desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to this
Amendment.

        Defined terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning given
them in the Agreement.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual
terms, covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

        1. Amendment. The first sentence of Section 14.5 of the Agreement shall
be amended as follows:

        "P&U shall have the right to terminate this Agreement (a) as of December
        31, 1998, upon written notice to DepoTech at any time prior to November
        1, 1998, or (b) at any time, upon 180 days' prior written notice to
        DepoTech."

        2. Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment,
the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.

        3. Further Assurances. The parties agree to execute such further
instruments, agreements and documents and to take such further action as may
reasonably be necessary to carry out the intent of this Amendment.

        4. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York (USA), without regard to its
conflict of laws rules (and without limiting the foregoing, the United Nations
Convention On Contracts for International Sale of Goods [1980] shall not govern
this Amendment).

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
date first above written.

DEPOTECH CORPORATION              PHARMACIA & UPJOHN S.p.A.
By:  /s/ John P. Longenecker      By:  /s/ Robert John Little
     -----------------------           ------------------------------
Title:  President & COO           Title:  Managing Director - Robert John Little
STATE v. Cesario ZAMORA-RAMOS.

No. 76P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Ted R. Williams, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Cesario Zamora-Ramos, for Zamora-Ramos, Cesario.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of February 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18573]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Modification Request Received Under the 
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit modification request received under the 
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) has received a request to modify a permit issued to conduct 
activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. 
L. 95-541; Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Part 670), as amended 
by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or views with respect to the permit modification by October 19, 2005. 
The permit modification request may be inspected by interested parties 
at the Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Polly A. Penhale or Nadene G. 
Kennedy at the above address or (703) 292-8030.
    Description of Permit Modification Requested: On November 1, 2001, 
the National Science Foundation issued a Waste Management Permit (2002 
WM-002) to Rennie S. Holt, Director, U.S. Antarctic Marine Living 
Resources (AMLR) Program, for the operation of a remote field camp at 
Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island, Antarctica. The permit holder wishes 
to modify this permit to include the use of doubly labeled water 
(tritiated and oxygen-18) to measure energetics in Antarctic fur seal 
pups. These radioisotopes will be added to the list of designated 
pollutants covered under the existing permit.
    Approval of the modification requested will still ensure that waste 
management and regulatory requirements are met while providing a 
streamlined approach to waste management. The duration of the requested 
modification is coincident with the current permit which expires on 
April 30, 2006.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18573 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
STATE v. HOLMES.

No. COA08-646.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Brunswick (05CRS56226, 05CRS56227, 07CRS2061).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
# C_2009090EN.01000201.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany)) — Mehmet Soysal, Ibrahim Savatli v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-228/06) (1)

1

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom to provide services - Visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State)

2009/C 90/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mehmet Soysal, Ibrahim Savatli

Applicants:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Joined Party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Joined Party:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (JO 1972 L 293, p. 4) — Validity of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1) — New restrictions on the freedom to provide services — Obligation imposed on a Turkish national employed as the driver of a lorry by a Turkish transport undertaking to be in possession of a visa in order to be able to enter the territory of a Member State, even though no such obligation existed on the date on which the Additional Protocol entered into force

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, which was signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the introduction, as from the entry into force of that protocol, of a requirement that Turkish nationals such as the appellants in the main proceedings must have a visa to enter the territory of a Member State in order to provide services there on behalf of an undertaking established in Turkey, since, on that date, such a visa was not required.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

1

---
# C_2008079EN.01002701.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 — Usinor v OHIM — Corus UK (GALVALLOY)

(Case T-189/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GALVALLOY - Earlier national word mark GALVALLIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 79/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Usinor SA (Puteaux, France) (represented by: P. de Candé and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Corus UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004-1) in respect of opposition proceedings between Usinor SA and Corus UK Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 February 2005 (Case R 411/2004-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Usinor SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Usinor SA;

| 3. | Orders Corus UK Ltd to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Corus UK Ltd to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy Jerome LAWING.

No. 395P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Anne Bleyman, for Lawing, Timothy Jerome.

Matthew Thomas Tulchin, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, *621filed by the Defendant on the 24th of November 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of November 2015 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 28th of January 2016."
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Parts 1 and 301 
          - [REG-168892-03] 
          - RIN 1545-BD00 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. 

# SUMMARY:

This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations explaining how to determine the attained age of an insured for purposes of testing whether a contract qualifies as a life insurance contract for Federal Income Tax purposes. 

# DATES:

The public hearing originally scheduled for September 14, 2005 at 10 a.m., is cancelled. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LaNita Van Dyke of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the                     **Federal Register**                     on Tuesday, May 24, 2005, (70 FR 29671), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for September 14, 2005, at 10 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 7702 of the Internal Revenue Code.                 

The public comment period for these regulations expired on August 24, 2005. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Friday, September 09, 2005, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for September 14, 2005, is cancelled. 

Guy R. Traynor, 

Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 05-18262 Filed 9-9-05; 2:42 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 99.5**CONSENT OF EXPERT**     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F, I, Gary H. Giroux, on behalf of GirouxConsultants Ltd. (“GCL”), hereby consent to the use of GCL’s name in connection with references toGCL’s involvement in the preparation of a technical reports entitled “Report on the Los FilosDeposit Guerrero, Mexico” dated September 2003 (the “Technical Report”) and to references to theinclusion and incorporation by reference of information derived from the Technical Report in theAnnual Report on Form 40-F.GIROUX CONSULTANTS LTD.
 By:/s/ Gary H.Giroux
KHAJA v. HUSNA.

No. 375A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Deborah Sandlin, Raleigh, for Khaja, Dabeeruddin.

Debra A. Griffiths, Raleigh.

Fatima Husna, for Husna, Fatima.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of November 2015 by Plaintiff to Dismiss Appeal:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."