alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ALEJANDRO PARRA-RAMOS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50216 

D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00240-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 19, 2018**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Parra-Ramos appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

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

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50216 

Parra-Ramos argues for the first time on appeal that the prosecutor breached 

the terms of the parties’ plea agreement by stating that he would “take the fifth” in 

response to the district court’s request that he explain the reasoning behind the 

agreed-upon recommendation of a two-month sentence and by stating that there 

“[was]n’t any rationality” to the recommendation in light of the 84-month sentence 

recommended by the government in another illegal reentry case the same day. The 

government argues that Parra-Ramos waived this claim. We decline to decide 

whether Parra-Ramos waived his breach claim because, even if merely forfeited, 

he cannot establish plain error.1 See United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965, 970 

(9th Cir. 2012). Even if the government breached the plea agreement by implicitly 

disclaiming the agreed-upon recommendation, the breach did not affect ParraRamos’s substantial rights. See United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar, 718 F.3d 1185, 

1187 (9th Cir. 2013). At sentencing, the district court focused on Parra-Ramos’s 

five prior convictions for immigration offenses and his failure to be deterred by 

previous sentences. Even defense counsel recognized at sentencing that, in light of 

Parra-Ramos’s history, the court would be “disinclined” to follow the parties’

recommendation. Under these circumstances, there is no reasonable probability 

 

1 We do not approve of “taking the fifth” when asked by a judge about the 

reasoning behind a plea agreement and then saying it had “no rationality.” We 

expect more serious responses by officers of the court, especially when the issue is 

the length of a defendant’s sentence.
3 17-50216 

that the alleged breach affected the court’s sentencing determination. See id. at 

1188-89.

AFFIRMED.
NUMBERS 13-08-00414-CV and 13-08-00415-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RENE ANZALDUA D/B/A ANZALDUA BAIL BONDS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 389th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Rene Anzaldua d/b/a Anzaldua Bail Bonds, perfected appeals from a

judgments entered by the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause numbers

CR-3230-06-H(N) and CR-3239-06-H(N). Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the

appeals on grounds that the State of Texas has disposed of the case and recalled the
2

Judgment NISI pending before this court. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss these

appeals.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to

dismiss the appeals, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R.APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeals are hereby

DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the

party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the

court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeals at appellant's

request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 23rd day of October, 2008.
# Official Journal C 284/16 N

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 284 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4816 November 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 284

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4816 November 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Notices |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 284/1 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 73/23/EEC (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Notices

Commission

2005/C 284/1

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 73/23/EEC (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive) (1)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
STATE of North Carolina v. Brian Jonathan ST. CLAIR, Defendant.

No. COA16-1003

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

NO ERROR.
In the MATTER OF: C.S.H.

No. COA17-360

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

AFFIRMED.
SOUTHERN SHORES REALTY SERVICES, INC. v. William G. MILLER, The Miller Family Limited Partnership II, The Miller Family Limited Partnership III, Old Glory II, LLC, Old Glory III, LLC, Old Glory IV, LLC, Old Glory V, LLC, Old Glory VI, LLC, Old Glory VII, LLC, Old Glory IX, LLC, Old Glory XI, LLC, Old Glory XII, LLC, and Old Glory XIII, LLC

No. 59P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

*44Gregory E. Wills, Attorney at Law, Point Harbor, for Miller, William G., et al.

David P. Ferrell, Attorney at Law, Kevin A. Rust, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Southern Shores Realty Services, Inc.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 3rd of March 2017 by Plaintiff 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-11127

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Chadwick Daray Heath, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CR-329-3

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Chadwick Daray 

Heath has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Heath has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-11127 Document: 00516735326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
No. 22-11127

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

Case: 22-11127 Document: 00516735326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136873 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136873 

 COA: 284587 

Oakland CC: 2007-215804-FH 

JACQUELINE MARIE CURRY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2008 order 

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

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting 

statement in People v Conway, 474 Mich 1140 (2006). 

p1020 

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. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE v. Terry Jerome WILSON

295P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 1, 2017

Sterling Rozear, Attorney at Law, for Wilson, Terry Jerome.

T. Hill Davis, III, Assistant Attorney General, Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of September 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of September 2017."
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 18, 2014

d0611

Order 

Clerk

June 18, 2014

148041 & (91)

LINDA THURSFIELD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 148041

COA: 302186

Oakland CC: 05-070476-CK

DAVID THURSFIELD,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 8, 2013 

judgment 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. The motion to 

strike is DENIED.
** **

** **

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

                                                                                

**Certification Pursuantto**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

** **

Thiscertification is provided pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for theperiod ended December 31, 2006 of Tripos, Inc. (the "Company") as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").

** **

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  herebycertifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

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

(b)           information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.  

                                                                                /s/John P. McAlister

                                                                                JohnP. McAlister

                                                                                ChiefExecutive Officer

                                                                                &Chief Financial Officer

                                                                                April30, 2007

----
ENTR 2014.06.30 Exhibit 10.4 - Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement Patrick Henry






FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into by and between Entropic Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), and Patrick Henry (“Executive”) and shall become effective as of June 20, 2014 (the “Amendment Date”).  
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement effective as of December 7, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement as provided below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:  
AMENDMENT
		
	1.
	The second full sentence of Section 4.1(b) of the Employment Agreement (beginning “For purposes of this Agreement . . .”) is hereby amended and restated to read as follows:


For purposes of this Agreement, “Cause” for termination exists if Executive is terminated for any of the following reasons: (i) Executive’s theft, dishonesty, or falsification of any Company documents or records; (ii) Executive’s improper use or disclosure of confidential or material proprietary information of the Company; (iii) Executive’s repeated negligence in the performance of Executive’s duties; (iv) Executive’s breach of his fiduciary duty to the Company by unlawfully competing with the Company in violation of Section 2.1 of this Agreement; or (v) Executive’s conviction (including any plea of guilty or nolo contendere) for (A) fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement, (B) any felony or crime of moral turpitude or (C) any other felony or misdemeanor charge, initially asserted after the Amendment Date, which in the good faith judgment of the Board of Directors, after also considering any related circumstances such as negative publicity, adversely affects the business reputation of the Company.









		
	2.
	Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect without any modification or waiver of any provision thereof.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date(s) indicated below.
	
					
	 
	 
	COMPANY:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Lance W. Bridges
	 

	 
	 
	Name:
	Lance W. Bridges
	 

	 
	 
	Title:
	General Counsel
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Date:
	June 20, 2014
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	EXECUTIVE:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	/s/ Patrick E. Henry
	 

	 
	 
	PATRICK HENRY
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Date:
	June 20, 2014
	 









[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT]
---

---

# Exhibit 14.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the reference to our
firm under the caption Experts in the Registration Statement Form F-3 (No.
333-111019, 333-119998, 333-126257, 333-143399) and related Prospectus and on Form S-8
(No. 333-118897, 333-113420) pertaining to the Employees Stock Option Plan of
Pointer Telocation Ltd. and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated
April 08, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Pointer
Telocation Ltd. , included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December
31, 2007, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

| |                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
| | /s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & KasiererKost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer
| | A Member of Ernst & Young Global                                
| |                                                                 

Tel-Aviv, Israel
April 08, 2008



---

---
CAGLE v. P.H. GLATFELTER/ECUSTA DIV.

No. COA08-26.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 19, 2008.

Certification Date September 8, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 121196).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
MDCO EX 10.1 06.30.2014


Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT NO. 1 
TO
THE MEDICINES COMPANY
2013 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


Pursuant to Section 11(d) of The Medicines Company 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan be, and hereby is, amended as set forth below. 
		
	1.
	Section 4(a)(1) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




“(1)    Authorized Number of Shares.    Subject to adjustment under Section 9, Awards may be made under the Plan for up to such number of shares of common stock, $0.01 par value per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”) (up to 15,542,134 shares) as is equal to the sum of (x) 5,500,000, (y) the remaining number of shares of Common Stock available for issuance under the Company's Amended and Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the "2004 Plan") as of the Effective Date (as defined in Section 11 (c)) and (z) the number of shares of Common Stock subject to awards granted under the 2004 Plan which awards expire, terminate or are otherwise surrendered, canceled, forfeited or repurchased by the Company at their original issue price pursuant to a contractual repurchase right (subject, in the case of Incentive Stock Options (as defined in Section 5(b)) to any limitations under the Code). Any or all of which Awards may be in the form of Incentive Stock Options (as defined in Section 5(b)). Shares issued under the Plan may consist in whole or in part of authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.” 
		
	2.
	Section 4(a)(2) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




“(2)    Fungible Share Pool.    Subject to adjustment under Section 9, any Award that is not a Full-Value Award shall be counted against the share limits specified in Section 4(a)(1) as one share for each share of Common Stock subject to such Award and any Award that is a Full-Value Award shall be counted against the share limits specified in Sections 4(a)(1) as 1.98 shares for each one share of Common Stock subject to such Full-Value Award. “Full-Value Award” means any Restricted Stock Award or Other Stock-Based Award with a per share price or per unit purchase price lower than 100% of Fair Market Value (as defined below) on the date of grant. To the extent a share that was subject to an Award that counted as one share is returned to the Plan pursuant to Section 4(a)(3), each applicable share reserve will be credited with one share. To the extent that a share that was subject to an Award that counts as 1.98 shares is returned to the Plan pursuant to Section 4(a)(3), each applicable share reserve will be credited with 1.98 shares.”
		
	3.
	Except as set forth above, all other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 




Adopted by the Board of Directors on March 28, 2014 and The Medicines Company's shareholders on May 30, 2014.
STATE v. Terrence Lowell HYMAN

245A08-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 10, 2017

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hyman, Terrence Lowell.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of March 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of March 2017."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136547 & (32)(33)(34)(35)(36)	 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136547 

 COA: 279046 
 Wayne CC: 03-004131

DWAYNE EDWARD HALL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motions for miscellaneous relief and motion for appointment of counsel are DENIED. 

s1020 

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. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
NO. 12-08-00319-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§

IN RE: MICHAEL KENNEDY,

RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original mandamus proceeding, Michael Kennedy asks that this court dismiss his

appellate counsel or, alternatively, order the trial court to rule on his motions to dismiss his appellate

counsel and allow him to represent himself. 

Kennedy has filed multiple motions in the trial court and in this court requesting dismissal

of his appellate counsel and permission to represent himself. On July 16, 2008, we remanded the

case to the trial court, and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing on the issue of Kennedy’s self

representation. The trial court has now made its ruling, rendering Kennedy’s mandamus petition

moot. Accordingly, Kennedy’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed. 

 JAMES T. WORTHEN 

 Chief Justice

Opinion delivered September 3, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Steven L.
Basta, Chief Executive Officer of BioForm Medical, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that:



|(i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: February 13, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Steven L. Basta
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Steven L. Basta        
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Tardra Eterell BOUKNIGHT, Defendant.

No. COA16-544

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 7, 2017

AFFIRMED.