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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 08-40045

Conference Calendar

EDWARD RAIFSNIDER

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CV-959

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Raifsnider, federal prisoner # 10389-045, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In his petition, Raifsnider, who

was convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms and was sentenced to a

180-month term of imprisonment based on his prior violent felony convictions,

attacked the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). The district court

determined that Raifsnider was challenging his conviction and his sentence and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40045

2

that Raifsnider could not proceed under § 2241 because his claim did not satisfy

the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

Raifsnider argues that § 2241 can be used to attack the constitutionality

of a criminal statute. Here, however, Raifsnider’s constitutional challenge is, in

effect, an attack on his 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. A motion under

§ 2255 provides the primary means of“collaterally attacking a federal sentence.”

Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Raifsnider has not pointed to any retroactively applicable Supreme Court

decision that applies to his claim, nor has he shown that his claim was foreclosed

by circuit law at the time when it should have been raised. Raifsnider has not

met his burden to show that he is entitled to proceed under the savings clause.

See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); see also

Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425-26 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Raifsnider requests that this court consider his claim pursuant to a writ

of audita querela. Because Raifsnider’s claim regarding the constitutionality of

the statute under which he was sentenced is not a “legal defense arising after

judgment,” he cannot proceed under a writ of audita querela. See Jimenez v.

Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996). 

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136590 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136590 

 COA: 283031 

Muskegon CC: 03-031806-DJ

ANDREW LAWRENCE LOYD EATON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 9, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
State v. Shameil Dontel Smith

269P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Shameil Dontel Smith, for Smith, Shameil Dontel.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of July 2016 by Defendant for Notice of Discovery and Specific Demand for Information:

*337"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
1491.

#### WALKER *v.*THE STATE.

.Attorneys should he allowed all reasonable latitude in the argument of eases to the jury, provided they do not go outside the facts legitimately . appearing from the trial, and lug in extraneous matters as if they were a part of the case.

Accusation of unlawful sale of liquor, from city court of Dalton —Judge Longley. September 28, 1908.

Submitted December 8,

Decided December 22, 1908.

*George G. Glenn,*for plaintiff in error.

*8am. P. Maddox, solicitor-general,*contra.

Powell, J.

Walker was convicted of the illegal sale of liquor. ¡Several sales were shown. There was an effort to impeach the ¡State’s witnesses, but our decision in *Plummer’s*case, 1 *Ga. App.*507 (57 S. E. 969), controls all that. His chief complaint now is that during the argument of the case the solicitor-general used the .following language: “Do as you please. Turn Mr. Walker loose if you want to, and let him go on selling whisky again.” Counsel for the defendant, at the time, objected to the argument and moved ■a mistrial. The court merely replied, “Stick to the record.” To hold that the solicitor-general exceeded the range of legitimate argument by use of the language quoted above would be to limit ■counsel within bounds wholly unreasonable. Counsel should not go outside the facts appearing in the case and the inferences to be deduced therefrom, and lug in extraneous matters as if they were a part of the case; but upon the facts in the record, and upon the de■ductions he may choose to draw therefrom, an attorney may make ■almost any form of argument he desires. Of course, there are certain exceptions dictated by the decorum of the court and similar •considerations; but the remarks here objected to are within no such •exception. We are not inclined to countenance any undue hammering the right of counsel to argue cases in whatever manner may seem to them most expedient. *Judgment affirmed.*
exv10w22w1






Exhibit 10.22.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AND NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT




     AGREEMENT, dated as of the 1st day of November, 2010, by and between Fortegra Financial
Corporation, a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), and Richard S. Kahlbaugh, a resident of Ponte
Vedra Beach, Florida (the “Executive”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have entered into an Executive Employment and
Non-Competition Agreement, dated as of March 7, 2007 (the “Original Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to be assured that the unique and expert services of the
Executive will be substantially available to the Company on a continued basis; and



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Original Agreement in order to
provide for additional benefits to the Executive and to provide for the continued service of the
Executive;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of such employment and the mutual covenants and promises
contained herein and in the Original Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive agree as
follows:



     Section 1. Amendment. The parties hereby amend the Original Agreement to insert at
the end of Section 5.03 of the Original Agreement:




“The company will pay the reasonable cost of an executive health review by Dr. Eye or a
physician of Executive’s choice on an annual basis. In order to encourage the health
and wellness of Executive, the Company will reimburse Executive for reasonable medical,
physical fitness and wellness related expenses incurred by Executive, including such
expenses incurred while Executive is travelling for business, to the extent such
expenses are not otherwise covered by Company’s health and medical plans. In addition,
business entertainment expenses as well as two golf memberships with the Ponte Vedra Inn
& Club and Hamilton Farm Golf Club for the purpose of business entertainment for
customers will be paid for by the Company.”



     Section 2. Entire Agreement. All other terms and provisions of the Original
Agreement not in conflict with this amendment shall remain unchanged and in effect. The Original
Agreement as amended hereby contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements among the parties.



     Section 3. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original and shall have the same effect as if the signatures
hereto and thereto were on the same instrument.



     Section 4. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed under and enforced in
accordance with the internal laws of the State of Florida.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as a sealed
instrument as of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	FORTEGRA FINANCIAL CORPORATION
 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
John G. Short	 
	 	Name:  	John G. Short	 
	 	Title:  	Secretary	 
	 
	 	EXECUTIVE	 
	 
	 	/s/ Richard S. Kahlbaugh
	 
	 	Name: Richard S. Kahlbaugh
# C_2008008EN.01001602.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/16

---

Order of 15 November 2007 of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures — Donnici v Parliament

(Case T-215/07 R)

(Application for interim measures - Decision of the European Parliament - Verification of the credentials of elected members - Invalidation of a parliamentary mandate resulting from the application of national electoral law - Application for a suspension of operation - Admissibility - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balancing of interests)

Prima facie

(2008/C 8/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (Castrolibero, Italy) (represented by: M. Sanino, G.M. Roberti, I. Perego and P. Salvatore, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and A. Caiola, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, and P. Gentili, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Achille Occhetto (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. De Caterini and F. Paola, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Application for a suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of the credentials of Beniamino Donnici [2007/2121(REG)] until the Court has ruled on the action in the main proceedings.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of the credentials of Beniamino Donnici [2007/2121(REG)] is suspended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of the credentials of Beniamino Donnici [2007/2121(REG)] is suspended.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
Exhibit
      32.1





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 Quarterly Report of RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Grant King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2001, that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
                November 15, 2007/s/
                Grant KingGrant
                KingChief
                Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6512

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM HENRY JOHNSON, a/k/a Skip,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00069-RCC-7)

Submitted: August 22, 2008 Decided: September 10, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Henry Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Miller A. Bushong, III,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia; John

J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Henry Johnson appeals the district court’s order

denying the motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) (West

2000 & Supp. 2008), to reduce his sentence. Because Johnson has

completed his term of imprisonment, his appeal may well be moot.

See United States v. Guess, 541 F. Supp. 2d 399, 401-05 (D. Me.

2008). In any event, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Johnson’s § 3582(c) motion. Accordingly, we

affirm. We 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
# C_2009032EN.01004902.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Bouis and Others v Commission

(Case F-113/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - ‘Second round’ promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Award of priority points - Transitional provisions - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment - Admissibility)

(2009/C 32/96)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Didier Bouis (Overijse, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Staff case — First, annulment of the decision of the Commission not to include the applicants either on the merit list or on the list of those promoted to grade A*13 in the 2005 promotion procedure; second, annulment of the decisions to award the applicants transitional priority points inasmuch as these points are limited to one point per year of seniority in grade; third, annulment of the decisions not to award any other priority points to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 49.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 – Commission v Luxembourg**

**(Case C‐294/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States
– Failure to transpose into national law within the prescribed period

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
– Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77 and corrigenda – OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAMION BUNCH , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Robert G. Doumar , Senior District Judge. ( 4:15

- cr - 00087

- RGD

- LRL

- 1; 4:18

- cv - 00013

- RGD )

Submitted : December 16, 2020 Decided: December 31, 2020

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Damion Bunch, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dami o n Bunch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appeal ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive p rocedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bunch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material s before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1282, -1283 

SANITEC INDUSTRIES, INC., 

 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

MICRO-WASTE CORPORATION, 

 Defendant-Cross Appellant. 

John M. Delehanty, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., of New 

York, New York, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Timur E. Slonim. 

Alan B. Daughtry, Jackson Walker L.L.P., of Houston, Texas, argued for defendantcross appellant. With him on the brief was Richard E. Griffin. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas 

Senior Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr. 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1282, -1283 

SANITEC INDUSTRIES, INC., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

MICRO-WASTE CORPORATION, 

 Defendant-Cross Appellant. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas 

 

In CASE NO(S). 04-CV-3066. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam: (MAYER, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit Judges): 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATE: October 9, 2008 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF MCLEOD, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 State of
Name                                           Incorporation
----                                           -------------
<S>                                            <C>
McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc.         Iowa

McLeodUSA Media Group, Inc.                         Iowa

McLeodUSA Publishing Company                        Iowa

McLeodUSA Diversified, Inc.                         Iowa

McLeodUSA Network Services, Inc.                    Iowa

McLeodUSA Maintenance Services, Inc.                Iowa

Ruffalo, Cody & Associates, Inc.                    Iowa

Digital Communications of Iowa, Inc.                Iowa
</TABLE>