alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ABRAHAM J. CRUZADO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 22619

July 7, 1994

879 P.2d 1195

*746[Rehearing denied December 30, 1994]

*Patricia M. Erickson,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Frankie Sue Del Papa,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Rex Bell,*District Attorney and *James Tufteland,*Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of five counts of sexual assault. The district court sentenced appellant to serve four consecutive terms of life with the possibility of parole and one concurrent term of life with the possibility of parole in the Nevada State Prison. The district court’s judgment of conviction requires appellant to pay $2,950.76 in restitution.

*747Appellant contends that his plea agreement unconstitutionally required him to relinquish his right to appeal. We disagree. A knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal made pursuant to a plea bargain is valid and enforceable. People v. Vargas, 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 661 (Ct. App. 1992); United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1990), *cert. denied,*503 U.S. 942, 112 S. Ct. 1488 (1992). Appellant further contends that his attorney was ineifective because counsel did not clearly inform appellant that he was waiving his right to appeal and of the consequences of that waiver. Appellant thus argues that his plea was involuntary. We conclude, however, that the district court did not err in concluding that appellant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and that appellant’s counsel was not ineffective. *See*Ford v. State, 105 Nev. 850, 854, 784 P.2d 951, 953 (1989) (district court’s findings in post-conviction proceedings will not be overturned if they are supported by substantial evidence).

Appellant further contends that the district court erred in awarding restitution. We agree. Before accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, a district court must inform the defendant of the direct consequences of the guilty plea. *See*Director, State Prison v. Powell, 101 Nev. 736, 738, 710 P.2d 73, 74 (1985). A restitution requirement is a direct consequence of a guilty plea of which the defendant must be informed. People v. Walker, 819 P.2d 861, 866 (Cal. 1991); State v. Phillips, 733 P.2d 1116, 1118 (Ariz. 1987); State v. War Bonnett, 428 N.W.2d 508 (Neb. 1988).

The record reveals that appellant was not informed of a possible restitution requirement before pleading guilty. Thus, the restitution requirement is not properly a part of appellant’s judgment of conviction. Further, appellant’s waiver of the right to appeal does not preclude this court from striking the restitution requirement. A waiver of the right to appeal does not prevent an appeal when the sentence imposed is not in accordance with the negotiated agreement. *Navarro-Botello,*912 F.2d at 321. We therefore correct appellant’s judgment of conviction by vacating the requirement that appellant pay $2,950.76 in restitution. With this modification, we affirm appellant’s judgment of conviction.
# L_2007207EN.01001201.xml

| 8.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 207/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 207/12

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 941/2007

of 7 August 2007

on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector (peaches)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables (2), and in particular Article 6(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 628/2007 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 628/2007 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued.

| (2) | In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for peaches will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for peaches will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector.

| (3) | To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for peaches after 7 August 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for peaches after 7 August 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for system B export licences for peaches submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 628/2007, export declarations for which are accepted after 7 August and before 1 November 2007, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 August 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 7 August 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 548/2007 (OJ L 130, 22.5.2007, p. 3).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 145, 7.6.2007, p. 7.

3

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.82

                        STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

                               Amendment Number 1

         This Amendment Number 1 to the Stock Option Agreement entered into
between Hanover Direct, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Thomas
C. Shull ("Shull"), which evidenced the grant to Shull by the Company of an
option to purchase 500,000 shares of the Company's common stock under the
Hanover Direct, Inc. 2000 Management Stock Option Plan as of December 14, 2001
(the "Option Agreement"), shall be effective as of September 1, 2002.

                              W I T N E S S E T H :

         WHEREAS, the Company and Shull entered into the Stock Option Agreement;
and

         WHEREAS, the Company and Shull now desire to amend the Option Agreement
in certain respects.

         NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto to the
following amendments to the Option Agreement:

         1.       Paragraph 4 of the Option Agreement is hereby amended to
include a proviso at the end as follows:

                      "; provided, further, however, that Optionee
                      agrees that the Option Shares shall not be
                      saleable until September 30, 2004 and, if issued
                      prior thereto, shall be legended to such effect
                      and stop transfer instructions given to the
                      Company's transfer agent ."

         2.       All references in the Option Agreement and in this Amendment
Number 1 to the "Services Agreement" shall refer to the Employment Agreement
between the Company and Shull, entered into as of September 1, 2002.

<PAGE>

         3.       Except as hereunder provided, the Option Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect without further modification.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Shull have executed this Amendment
Number 1 as of September 1, 2002.

                                    HANOVER DIRECT, INC.

                                    By: /s/ Michael D. Contino
                                        ----------------------
                                        Name: Michael D. Contino
                                        Title: EVP & C.O.O

                                    /s/ Thomas C. Shull
                                    -------------------
                                    THOMAS C. SHULL
Exhibit 10.10(d)

FOURTH AMENDMENT  TO THE TRANSFER AND SERVICING AGREEMENT

This Fourth Amendment to the Transfer and Servicing Agreement ("Amendment") is executed as of this
3rd day of August, 2001, by and among COMPUCREDIT FUNDING CORP., a Nevada corporation, as Transferor, COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION, a Georgia corporation, as Servicer, COMPUCREDIT CREDIT CARD
MASTER NOTE BUSINESS TRUST, a Nevada business trust, as Issuer, and THE BANK OF NEW YORK, a New York banking corporation, as Indenture Trustee.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the Transferor, the Issuer, the Servicer and the Indenture Trustee executed the Transfer and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 14, 2000 (as
amended, the "Agreement"); and

WHEREAS,
the parties hereto have agreed to amend the Agreement on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth:

NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

SECTION
1.Amendment of the Agreement.    (a) The Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following paragraphs at
the end of subsection 2.04(a):



---



SECTION
2.Miscellaneous



---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Transferor, the Servicer, the Issuer and the Indenture Trustee have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective officers as of the day and year
first above written.

| |  | COMPUCREDIT FUNDING CORP.,
as Transferor,                                            
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                                                                  
| |  |                                                                                      
| |  | COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION,
as Servicer,                                                
| |  | By:                                                                                  
| |  |                                                                                      
| |  | COMPUCREDIT CREDIT CARD MASTER NOTE BUSINESS TRUST,
as Issuer                        
| |  | By:                                                                                  
| |  | By:                                                                                  
| |  |                                                                                      
| |  | THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
not in its individual capacity but solely as Indenture Trustee,
| |  | By:                                                                                  
| |  |                                                                                      



[Fourth Amendment to Transfer and Servicing Agreement]

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5405 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5405

To provide for a visitor center for visitors to Yosemite National Park, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2010

Mr. Radanovich introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a visitor center for visitors to Yosemite National Park, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK VISITORS CENTER.

    (a) Acquisition of Lands and Interests in Lands.--The Secretary of 
the Interior may acquire not more than 18 acres of lands and interests 
in lands, from willing sellers only, outside the boundaries of Yosemite 
National Park near the junction of highways CA-49 and CA-140 in the 
community of Mariposa, California, to provide a site or sites for 
visitor services and administrative purposes.
    (b) Permanent Improvements for Visitor Services and Administrative 
Facilities.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary may use Federal and other 
        available funds for the design, construction, management, and 
        maintenance of permanent improvements to provide visitor 
        services and administrative facilities on lands and interests 
        in lands acquired under subsection (a).
            (2) Planning.--When planning permanent improvements under 
        paragraph (1), the Secretary may--
                    (A) partner with Mariposa County on land use 
                planning related to the lands and interests in lands 
                acquired under subsection (a); and
                    (B) consider the feasibility of allowing the State 
                of California to locate the California State Mining and 
                Mineral Museum on the lands and interests in lands 
                acquired under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### HIGHWAY COMM. v. ROSE

No. 90 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 28.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 December 1976.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RICHMOND POST 

OFFICE, Richmond, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 24-0165

Issued: December 21, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On December 11, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a March 17, 2022 nonmerit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned the appeal Docket No. 24-0165.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the March 17, 2022 decision was September 13, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until December 11, 2023, more than 180 days after 

the March 17, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 24-0165 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not explained 

her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 

days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 

24-0165, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 24-0165 is dismissed.

Issued: December 21, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id. at 

§ 501.6(d).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DARREN LEONARD IZARD, a/k/a Sld Dft 5:02CR37-4, a/k/a Twin, 

a/k/a Fat Boy, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00037-RLV-4) 

Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Darren Leonard Izard, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Theodore 

Martens, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North 

Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Darren Leonard Izard appeals the district court’s 

order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. 

Izard, No. 5:02-cr-00037-RLV-4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2008). 

Further, as this court has recently issued its opinion in United 

States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009), we deny Izard’s 

motion to place this appeal in abeyance for Hood as moot. 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
# L_2007264EN.01000501.xml

| 10.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 264/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 264/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1179/2007

of 9 October 2007

registering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Bayerischer Meerrettich or Bayerischer Kren (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and Article 17(2) thereof, the application submitted by Germany to register the name ‘Bayerischer Meerrettich’ or ‘Bayerischer Kren’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and Article 17(2) thereof, the application submitted by Germany to register the name ‘Bayerischer Meerrettich’ or ‘Bayerischer Kren’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | One objection was notified to the Commission under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. As that objection was subsequently withdrawn, the name should be registered, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

One objection was notified to the Commission under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. As that objection was subsequently withdrawn, the name should be registered,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby registered.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following 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, 9 October 2007.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).

1

(2)  
  OJ C 283, 21.11.2006, p. 12.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

| Class 1.6. | Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.6.

Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

GERMANY

Bayerischer Meerrettich or Bayerischer Kren (PGI)

---
EX-10.1




 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

DCP MIDSTREAM, LP 2016 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 

1. Recitals: Pursuant to the authority granted in Section 7(a) of the DCP Midstream, LP 2016 Long-Term
Incentive Plan (originally adopted as the DCP Midstream Partners, LP Long-Term Incentive Plan) (the “Plan”), the Board of Directors of DCP Midstream GP, LLC wishes to amend the Plan to revise the number of Units available for Awards and to
clarify payment timing and settlement of any phantom unit awards that are subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 

2. Amendment of Plan: The following Amendment to the Plan is adopted, effective as of March 7, 2022: 

A. The first sentence of Section 4(a) is amended to read as follows: 

Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(c), the number of Units that may be delivered with respect to Awards under
the Plan is 2,550,000 Units. 
 B. Section 6(b)(iii)(A) is amended to read as follows: 

(A) Phantom Units. Upon or as soon as reasonably practical following the vesting of each Phantom Unit, but in no event
later than 2 1⁄2 months after the end of the calendar year in which such Award becomes vested unless otherwise provided in the Award Agreement in compliance with
section 409A of the Code, and subject to the provisions of Section 8(b), the Participant shall, for purposes of this Section 6(b)(iii)(A), be entitled to receive from the Company one Unit or cash equal to the settlement value of a
Phantom Unit, as determined by the Committee in its discretion as specified in the Award Agreement. 
 3. Terms and Conditions
of Plan: Except for the above Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Plan are unamended and shall remain in full force and effect. 

4. Execution: This Amendment has been executed on the date set forth below. 

 

			
	DCP MIDSTREAM, LP
	
	BY: DCP MIDSTREAM GP, LP, ITS GENERAL PARTNER
	
	BY: DCP MIDSTREAM GP, LLC, ITS GENERAL PARTNER
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kamal Gala
	Title:	 	Corporate Secretary
	Date:	 	March 7, 2022
EXHIBIT 24
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
  Signature
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ D. Scott Mercer

D. Scott Mercer
    
    Chairman of the Board
and ChiefExecutive
Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
    
    November 20, 2008/s/ Christian Scherp

Christian Scherp
    
    President
    
    November 20, 2008/s/ Karen Roscher

Karen Roscher
    
    Senior Vice President
and ChiefFinancial
Officer (Principal
Financial and
Accounting Officer)
    
    November 20, 2008/s/ William E. Bendush

William E. Bendush
    
    Director
    
    November 20, 2008




---



##### 



Signature
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ Steven J. Bilodeau

Steven J. Bilodeau
    
    Director
    
    November 20, 2008Dwight W. Decker
    
    Director
    
    November 20, 2008/s/ F. Craig Farrill

F. Craig Farrill
    
    Director
    
    November 20, 2008/s/ Balakrishnan S. Iyer

Balakrishnan S. Iyer
    
    Director
    
    November 20, 2008/s/ Matthew E. Massengill

Matthew E. Massengill
    
    Director
    
    November 20, 2008/s/ Jerre L. Stead

Jerre L. Stead
    
    Director
    
    November 20, 2008
 2