alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LEON EUSTORGIO MORALES, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 10971

August 19, 1980

615 P.2d 254

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Richard Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City, and *Robert Miller,*District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*703OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant pleaded guilty to sale of controlled substance and to possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced appellant to serve a term of twenty years on the sale charge, and to serve a concurrent term of six years on the possession charge. Appeal is taken from imposition of sentence.

Appellant first claims that the sentencing court violated appellant’s right to equal protection because it considered appellant’s status as an alien in imposing sentence. Appellant also claims that the sentencing court impermissibly considered allegations that appellant was a revolutionary and an international drug dealer.

Appellant cited no case which directly supports his argument that a court commits reversible error if he considers alienage when imposing sentence. In our view, Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) does not support appellant’s argument. Although the district judge’s remarks may have been unfortunate, we find no reversible error. *Cf.*Hall v. State, 89 Nev, 366, 513 P.2d 1244 (1973).

Nor do we believe that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant. So long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded upon facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence, this court will refrain from interfering with sentence imposed. Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 545 P.2d 1159 (1976). Here, the trial court inquired of the appellant to ascertain whether there was any basis for reports that appellant was a revolutionary and had dealt in weapons and narcotics, and, although appellant’s attorney argued that the reports were baseless, his attorney objected when the prosecutor offered to call witnesses and substantiate the claims.

The judgments are affirmed.
#### BANKING COMM. v. BANK

No. 47 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 557.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 April, 1973.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-312-CR

SCOTT P. SCHNEIDER	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	This court previously affirmed the aggravated assault conviction of Appellant Scott P. Schneider.  See Schneider v. State, 9 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.).  Our mandate issued on March 9, 2000. [CM]  On July 390, 2003, Appellant filed in the trial court a motion for new trial and several other post-conviction motions, all challenging this final conviction. [Misc.file] Appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s denial of these motions.

	On August 19, 2003, this court notified Appellant that we were concerned we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because Appellant is attempting to challenge his final felony conviction.  Appellant’s response to our jurisdiction inquiry does not provide grounds for continuing this appeal.  

	We hold that article 11.07 provides the exclusive means for challenging Appellant’s final felony conviction, and we do not have jurisdiction over this purported appeal.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2003); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals, 910 S.W.2d 481, 482-84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding).  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.     

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: MONTH  September 25, 2003DAY, 2003
# EUR-Lex - 32007M4460 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32007M4460

**Commission Decision of 21/02/2007 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.4460 - ABN AMRO / CARLSON / T.G.I. FRIDAY'S) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

Brussels, 21/02/2007

SG-Greffe(2007) D/200827

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

To the notifying parties

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No. COMP/M.4460 – ABN AMRO / Carlson / T.G.I. Friday's

Notification of 18 January 2007 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1]

Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 18, 26.01.07, p. 14.

1. On 18 January 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertakings ABN AMRO Capital BO Funds B.V. (“AACBOF”, the Netherlands) belonging to the ABN AMRO group and Carlson Restaurants Worldwide Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Carlson Companies Inc. (“Carlson” USA) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the UK T.G.I. Friday’s franchised restaurant business of Whitbread Group Plc. ("Whitbread", UK) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are :

- for undertaking ABN AMRO : provider of banking and financial services ;

- for undertaking Carlson : active in the marketing, travel and hospitality sector ;

- for T.G.I. Friday’s restaurant : informal restaurants.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph c of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

signed

Lowri EVANS

Deputy Director-General

for Philip LOWE

Director General

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32

--------------------------------------------------
J-S61011-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CLARENCE LAUDENBERGER

Appellant No. 562 MDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order March 3, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001946-1996

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2015

In Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), the 

United States Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right for juveniles 

under the age of eighteen and held that “mandatory life without parole for 

those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth 

Amendment’s prohibition against ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’” ___ U.S. 

at ___, 132 S.Ct. at 2460. Our Supreme Court, however, has ruled that that 

the right announced in Miller does not apply retroactively. See 

Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. 2013). In this appeal, 

from an order denying his third PCRA petition as untimely filed, 

Laudenberger presents a claim that he knows he cannot win in this Court: 

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S61011-15

- 2 -

that our Supreme Court wrongly decided Cunningham. Laudenberger 

presents this issue in order to preserve it “for further litigation and appellate 

review[,] including review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and future 

litigation in the federal court system.” Appellant’s Brief, at 14. 

We, of course, are bound by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 

decision in Cunningham. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Friday, 90 A.2d 

856, 859 (Pa. Supper. 1952) (“[Superior] Court is bound by the decisions of 

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.”); Act of June 24, 1895, P.L. 212, § 10, 

17 P.S. § 198 (“Upon any question whatever before the said [Superior] 

[C]ourt the decision of the [S]upreme [C]ourt shall be received and followed 

as of binding authority.”). Thus, we cannot overturn Cunningham. This 

Court has explained that Cunningham dictates that an appellant cannot use 

Miller to establish jurisdiction over an untimely PCRA petition in any 

Pennsylvania court. See Commonwealth v. Seskey, 86 A.3d 237, 243 (Pa. 

Super. 2014). See also Commonwealth v. Reed, 107 A.3d 137 (Pa. 

Super. 2014). 

The PCRA court committed no error in summarily dismissing 

Laudenberger’s PCRA petition as untimely filed.
J-S61011-15

- 3 -

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/17/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
         INTER-TEL,  INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
         YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31,  1995 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
         REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                           350066
<NAME>                         INTER-TEL, INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          39,577
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,811
<INVENTORY>                                     20,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,813
<PP&E>                                          24,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,402
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,302
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        58,816
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,402
<SALES>                                        148,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,846
<CGS>                                           87,031
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,249
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,451
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,451
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 208 (Friday, October 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 62143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21490]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act 
of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 19, 2005, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of receipt of a 
permit modification request. The permit modification was issued on 
October 21, 2005 to: Rennie S. Holt Permit No. 2002-007 Mod. 1.

Nadine G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21490 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Order entered July 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00211-CR

MITCHELL, CHRISTEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-61101-U

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant Christen Mitchell’s July 18, 2013 “Motion for Release 

of Oral Argument Recording and Transcript and to Extend Time to File Motion for Rehearing.” 

We GRANT IN PART appellant’s motion and ORDER that any motion for rehearing is to be 

filed on or before August 29, 2013. In all other respects appellant’s motion is DENIED. 

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10099

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

GARLAND SCOTT JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:14-CR-170-1 

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Garland Scott Johnson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a 

firearm and was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment and three years of 

supervised release. He argues that the district court erred in applying the 

crime-of-violence enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on his prior 

Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 19, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10099 Document: 00513958243 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2017
No. 16-10099

2 

More specifically, Johnson argues that Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a) is 

not divisible. We rejected this argument in United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 

667, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 661924 (Mar. 20, 2017) (No. 

16-7969). Johnson also argues that § 30.02(a) does not constitute generic 

burglary of a dwelling because it encompasses the burglary of certain vehicles 

and structures appurtenant to said vehicles. We rejected this argument under 

plain error review in United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 

(5th Cir. 2005), and recently followed that holding in analyzing a similar 

Tennessee statute in United States v. Castro-Alfonso, 841 F.3d 292, 297-98 (5th 

Cir. 2016). 

The district court did not err in applying the crime-of-violence 

enhancement because Johnson was convicted of violating § 30.02(a)(1) by 

entering the victim’s habitation with the intent to commit theft, which 

constitutes generic burglary of a dwelling. See Uribe, 838 F.3d at 671; U.S.S.G. 

§§ 2K2.1, comment. (n.1), 4B1.2, comment. (n.1) (2015). Moreover, any error 

was harmless because the district court stated that, even if it incorrectly 

calculated the guidelines range, it would impose the same sentence based upon 

its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, particularly Johnson’s 

extensive criminal history. See Castro-Alfonso, 841 F.3d at 298-99.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-10099 Document: 00513958243 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2017
Presidential Documents

61545 

Federal Register 

Vol. 70, No. 204 

Monday, October 24, 2005 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 7950 of October 20, 2005 

United Nations Day, 2005 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Sixty years ago, the United Nations was created to spread hope and liberty, 

fight poverty and disease, and help secure human rights and human dignity 

for people everywhere. On United Nations Day, we recommit ourselves 

to the ideals on which this organization was founded. 

Throughout history, the human spirit has been tested by the forces of darkness 

and evil. Since its founding in the aftermath of World War II, the United 

Nations has worked to solve problems and harness the best instincts of 

humankind. Today, we must continue efforts to ease suffering, spread freedom, and lay the foundations of lasting peace for our children and grandchildren. 

In the aftermath of last year’s tsunami in the Indian Ocean region and 

this month’s earthquakes in South Asia, we have witnessed the great capacity 

of human compassion. The support from the United Nations demonstrated 

how nations of the world can unite in common purpose to address difficult 

challenges. This enduring truth inspired those who created the United Nations, and it continues to do so 60 years later. With courage and conscience, 

we will meet our responsibilities to protect the lives and rights of others. 

As we do this, we will help fulfill the great promise of the United Nations, 

ensuring that all people can enjoy the peace, freedom, and dignity our 

Creator intended. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 24, 2005, as 

United Nations Day. I urge the Governors of the 50 States, the Governor 

of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the officials of other areas under 

the flag of the United States to honor the observance of United Nations 

Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day 

of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth. 

W 

[FR Doc. 05–21354 

Filed 10–21–05; 11:28 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.10.1

                  CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         Pursuant to Section 7.5 of the Employment Agreement dated as of August
10, 2000, between Heritage Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Heritage"),
and the undersigned (the "Employee"), the undersigned Employee does hereby
consent and agree to (i) the assignment of said Employment Agreement by Heritage
to U.S. Propane, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("U.S. Propane"), and U.S.
Propane's assumption of the duties and responsibilities of Heritage arising
under said Employment Agreement.

         DATED as of February 3, 2002.



                                        ---------------------------------
                                        H. Michael Krimbill
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 September 10, 2019

p0904

Order 

Clerk

September 10, 2019

157276

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157276

COA: 333904 

Calhoun CC: 2016-000124-FC

ROBERT TERRAIL WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of September 12, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the November 

21, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Ames (Docket No. 156077). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been 

denied in Ames on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the application is again 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2007298EN.01000801.xml

| 11.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4828 — Owens Corning/Saint Gobain Vetrotex)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 298/05)

On 26 October 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4828. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4828. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Exhibit
    10.24.5
  (LOGO)
    (WACHOVIA SECURITIES)       Attn:
    Kerry Petry,    Re:
    Credit and Security Agreement dated as of November 29,
    2005, by and between Conexant USA, LLC
    (Purchaser), and Wachovia Bank, National
    Association, as Lender (as the same has been or may
    be amended, restated, supplemented, or otherwise modified from
    time to time the Credit Agreement);
    Capitalized terms used herein have the meanings ascribed thereto
    in the Credit Agreement.    Wachovia




---



##### 



(a)
    Each of Purchaser and Seller shall have executed and delivered
    this letter; and  (b)
    Wachovia shall be satisfied that the Policy remains in effect
    and comports with the terms and conditions of the Program
    Documents.    804-868-1477, original
       
       CONEXANT USA, LLC, as Purchaser

CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC., as Seller
    and as ServicerBy:

(-s- K.K. Petry)

By:

(-s- K.K. Petry)Title:

(VP and Treasurer)

Title:

(VP and Treasurer)Date:

(11-24-08)

Date:

(11-24-08)