alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4309

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY DERRELL FOYE, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Bull,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:16-cr-00130-MSD-LRL-2)

Submitted: January 29, 2019 Decided: February 12, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amy L. Austin, LAW OFFICE OF AMY L. AUSTIN, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia;

Melinda R. Glaubke, SLIPOW ROBUSTO & KELLAM, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 

for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, 

Andrew Bosse, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Anthony Derrell Foye appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw 

his guilty plea. Foye pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to four counts of murder 

in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and (2) (2012). In 

exchange for Foye’s plea, the Government agreed not to seek the death penalty and to

dismiss the remaining charges in the indictment. Foye pled guilty pursuant to the 

agreement, and the Government filed notice that it would not seek the death penalty. 

Thereafter, Foye moved to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court denied after 

an evidentiary hearing. The court sentenced Foye to four concurrent life sentences, as 

specified in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).

After a district court accepts a guilty plea, but before sentencing, a defendant may 

withdraw his plea if he “can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal”

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “[T]he defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that 

withdrawal should be granted.” United States v. Dyess, 478 F.3d 224, 237 (4th Cir. 

2007). We review the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012). 

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Foye’s motion to withdraw his plea.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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.                  

###### Presidio Trust

# AGENCY:

The Presidio Trust. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with §103(c)(6) of the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb note, Title I of Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4097, as amended, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will be held commencing 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 20, 2005, at the Herbst International Exhibition Hall, 385 Moraga Avenue, Presidio of San Francisco, California. The Presidio Trust was created by Congress in 1996 to manage approximately eighty percent of the former U.S. Army base known as the Presidio, in San Francisco, California. 

The purposes of this meeting are to provide an Executive Director's Report, to provide an overview of projects and plans for fiscal year 2006, and to receive public comment in accordance with the Trust's Public Outreach Policy. 

Accommodation: Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, such as needing a sign language interpreter, should contact Mollie Matull at (415) 561-5300 prior to October 14, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Cook, General Counsel, the Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129-0052, Telephone: (415) 561-5300. 

Dated: September 23, 2005. 

Karen A. Cook, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05-19433 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
Order filed, May 20, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00382-CV

____________

HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellant

V.

ANJALI BRAUN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE 

SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellee

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-07942

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 17, 2019. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cynthia Berry, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
Ball v. Ellis

225P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2016

James M. Ellis, Attorney at Law, Black Mountain, for Ellis, James M.

Charles Anthony Ball, for Ball, Charles Anthony.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of June 2016 by Plaintiff for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of June 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Ahmad Jamil NICHOLSON

No. 319A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Nicholson, Ahmad Jamil.

John R. Green, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 22nd of September 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00354-CV

FOXWORTH-GALBRAITH LUMBER COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

Joseph W. KERESZTURY d/b/a Joe Keresztury Homes,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 307514

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 15, 2008

DISMISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal with prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

PER CURIAM
-2-
# Official Journal C 33A/9 Fe

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 33A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 499 February 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 33A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 499 February 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2006/C 033A/1 | Guide for applicants | 1 |
| 2006/C 033A/2 | Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/11/06 to constitute a reserve of assistants (AST 3) in the field of proofreading — English language | 13 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2006/C 033A/1

Guide for applicants

1

2006/C 033A/2

Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/11/06 to constitute a reserve of assistants (AST 3) in the field of proofreading — English language

EPSO/AST/11/06

English language

13

---

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

EN
# Official Journal C 119A/14 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 119A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5814 April 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 119A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5814 April 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2015/C 119A/01 | Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/112 | 1 |
| 2015/C 119A/02 | Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/113 | 18 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2015/C 119A/01

Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/112

1

2015/C 119A/02

Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/113

18

---

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

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             728
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               140,825
<PP&E>                                       7,115,383
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,098,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,169,974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,227
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,139,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,169,747
<SALES>                                        804,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               810,989
<CGS>                                          249,371
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  656,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            154,318
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   154,318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# L_2010277EN.01S00301.xml

| 21.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 87/2010 was withdrawn prior to adoption and is therefore blank.

---
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 Defense

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 96-463, notice is hereby given that the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA) Project will hold a public meeting at the Anteon Conference Center, 1560 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22209, on October 29, 2005 from 9 a.m. to Noon.

*Purpose:*                         The Panel will meet during a public session on October 19, 2005 from 9 a.m. to Noon. Any interested citizens are encouraged to attend the meetings open to the public, subject to the availability of space.                    

*Date:*                         October 19, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to Noon.                    

*Location:*                         Anteon Conference Center, 1560 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22209.                    

# For Further Information Contact:

                         Any member of the public wishing further information concerning this meeting or wishing to submit comments must contact: Lt Col Rene Bergeron, Assistant Director of Staff, Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Project, 1670 Air Force Pentagon, Rm 3A873, Washington, DC 20310-1010. Telephone: (703) 697-3420, Voice: (703) 697-3420, Fax: (703) 697-3511,                         *rene.bergeron@pentagon.af.mil*.                    

Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Panel, preferably via e-mail. Statements to the Panel must be directed to the point of contact listed above.

Dated: September 26, 2005.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 05-19572 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
MMC 06.30.2014 10Q Ex_10.1






Exhibit 10.1






Description of Compensation Arrangements for Independent Directors
 
Effective June 1, 2014, which will be the start of the Board’s annual pay cycle, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) will compensate its independent directors as follows:


Basic Annual Retainer.  All independent directors will receive a basic annual retainer of $110,000. 
 
Annual Stock Grant.  On June 1 of each year, all independent directors will receive an annual grant of the Company’s common stock with a market value of $140,000 on the grant date.
 
Supplemental Annual Retainers for Audit and Compensation Committee Chairs.     The chairs of the Board’s audit and compensation committees will each receive a supplemental annual retainer of $25,000.


Supplemental Annual Retainers for Committee Chairs.     The chairs of the Board’s finance, directors and governance and corporate responsibility committees will each receive a supplemental annual retainer of $15,000.
 
Supplemental Annual Retainer for Non-Executive Chairman.     The Board’s independent chairman will receive a supplemental annual retainer of $200,000. 


Under the terms of the Company’s Directors’ Stock Compensation Plan, each director may elect to receive his or her basic annual retainer and any supplemental annual retainer in cash, common stock or a combination thereof.
# C_2008272EN.01002002.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-181/06) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Financial adjustments - Fruit and vegetables - Dairy products - Arable farming - Rural development - Non-compliance with payment deadlines)

(2008/C 272/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G.Aiello, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C.Cattabriga and F.Jimeno Fernandez, acting as Agents, and A.Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/334/EC of 28 April 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 124, p. 21) in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sectors of fruit and vegetables, milk and dairy products, arable farming, rural development as well as concerning payment deadlines.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-5141 WILLIAM C. SADD and PATRICIA W. SADD, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 05-CV-025, Judge Lawrence J. Block. ON MOTION ORDER The appellants move without opposition for a 6-day extension of time, until April 21, 2009, to file their response to the court's November 7, 2008 order. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT

Date

cc: Sallie W. Gladney, Esq. Deborah K. Snyder, Esq. s20 Jan Horbaly Clerk 

# ustitidkatiarm

APR 17 2009 JAk rithipia CLERK 

## APR 17 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly
* 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. 99-20933

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR AURELIO SANCHEZ-ZUNIGA,

also known as Hector Sanchez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-183-1

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

August 23, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Aurelio Sanchez-Zuniga (Sanchez) appeals the sentence

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry

into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sanchez

challenges a sixteen-level increase to his base offense level

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Sanchez’s argument that mere

possession of cocaine does not qualify as an “aggravated felony”

for purposes of § 2L1.2 is foreclosed by our decision in United

States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). 
No. 99-20933

-2-

In Hinojosa-Lopez, we determined that a prior conviction

constitutes an aggravated felony for purposes of § 2L1.2 if

“(1) the offense was punishable under the Controlled Substances

Act and (2) it was a felony.” 130 F.3d at 694. Hinojosa-Lopez’s

rationale applies to the instant case. Possession of cocaine is

punishable under the Controlled Substances Act, and such

possession is a felony under Texas law. See 21 U.S.C. § 844(a);

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(3)(D), 481.115 (West

2000).

Sanchez acknowledges that his appellate arguments are at

least partially foreclosed by Hinojosa-Lopez but argues that a

determination that he committed a drug-trafficking offense when

he “merely possessed cocaine violates common sense, the rule of

lenity, and the due process requirement of notice and

specificity.” “The rule of lenity . . . applies only when, after

consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, [a court

is] left with an ambiguous statute.” United States v. Shabani,

513 U.S. 10, 17 (1994) (emphasis added). The term “aggravated

felony” was not so ambiguous as to require an application of the

rule of lenity. See Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d at 693-94.

Sanchez’s due process argument also is unconvincing. 

Sanchez is challenging a sentencing guideline, not a criminal

statute. “Due process does not mandate . . . notice, advice, or

a probable prediction of where, within the statutory range, the

guideline sentence will fall.” United States v. Pearson, 910

F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990).
No. 99-20933

-3-

This appeal borders on being frivolous. We caution counsel. 

Counsel has no duty to bring frivolous appeals; the opposite is

true. See United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.

1994).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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 Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   Date: December 17, 2012  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer