alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

vs. 3:10cr43/MCR 

JOHNNIE MALLETY, JR.,

 Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11,

Fed.R.Crim.P., and has entered a plea of guilty to the two count indictment against

him. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning the

subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable

and voluntary, and that the offense charged is supported by an independent basis

in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore

recommend that the plea of guiltybe accepted and that the defendant be adjudicated

guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: August 17, 2010

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within 24 hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to

object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. §

636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 60374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5271]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 12 p.m., Monday, October 29, 2007.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 19, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 07-5271 Filed 10-22-07; 9:23 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EXHIBIT 99.2
				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 Annual Report of Lescarden Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended August 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Luther, Chief executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

   (1)  The Report fully complies with the 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.


                         /s/ William E. Luther
                             William E. Luther
                             Vice-President and
                             Interim Chief Executive Officer
                             October 11, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 9, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Pages 57477-57478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5006]



[[Page 57475]]

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

Part V





The President





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



Proclamation 8185--German-American Day, 2007



Proclamation 8186--Columbus Day, 2007



Proclamation 8187--Leif Erikson Day, 2007


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 57477]]

                Proclamation 8185 of October 4, 2007

                
German-American Day, 2007

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                Generations of German Americans have helped shape our 
                national culture and advance our legacy of freedom. On 
                German-American Day, we recognize the many 
                contributions that Americans of German descent have 
                made to our vibrant country.

                German immigrants, in search of a brighter future, were 
                among the first pioneers to settle in Jamestown. Since 
                then, German Americans have influenced our society in 
                all walks of life and helped expand our democratic 
                heritage and our deeply held belief in individual 
                liberty. The leadership and strong spirit of German 
                Americans have helped shape our country and advance the 
                great blessings of our Nation.

                German-American Day is also an opportunity to honor the 
                strong ties between the United States and Germany and 
                to celebrate our friendship. On this day, we underscore 
                our commitment to working together to promote peace and 
                making the world a more hopeful place.

                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 6, 2007, as German-
                American Day. I encourage all Americans to celebrate 
                the many contributions German Americans have made to 
                our Nation's liberty and prosperity.

[[Page 57478]]

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                fourth day of October, in the year of our Lord two 
                thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United 
                States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. 
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. 07-5006
Filed 10-5-07; 8:55 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-119-CR

GLENN CROCHETTE	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	A jury convicted Appellant Glenn Crochette of aggravated assault, found the enhancement paragraphs true, and assessed his punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The trial court sentenced him accordingly.  In four points, Appellant complains about an overruled challenge for cause and the exclusion of evidence.  We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

	Appellant got into a verbal altercation with some juveniles at an apartment complex playground.  The adult complainant heard the commotion from his apartment and went to the playground to see what was going on.  Appellant ultimately lunged at the complainant with a knife and cut his forearm.  The evidence conflicted on the issue of self-defense.

	In his first point, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by overruling his challenge for cause to a member of the venire.  As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held,

		To preserve error on denied challenges for cause, an appellant must demonstrate on the record that:  1) he asserted a clear and specific challenge for cause; 2) he used a peremptory challenge on the complained-of venireperson; 3) all his peremptory challenges were exhausted; 4) his request for additional strikes was denied;  and 5) an objectionable juror sat on the jury.2

	Appellant has not demonstrated that he exhausted his peremptory challenges, that the trial court denied a request for additional strikes, or that an objectionable person sat on the jury.  He has therefore failed to preserve this complaint.  We overrule Appellant’s first point.

	In his remaining three points, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by excluding evidence concerning the prior relationship between Appellant and the juveniles at the playground.  He argues that the trial court’s rulings prevented him “from eliciting vital information concerning the prior relationships between the parties in the apartment complex as well as the intent or motive of the teenagers in regard to Appellant.”  He focuses on the fact that he raised the issue of self-defense.  Our review of the record shows that the questions sought information about an adult eyewitness and the juveniles; they sought no information about the complainant or his relationship with Appellant.3  The trial court therefore correctly held that the questions sought irrelevant evidence.4  We overrule Appellant’s second, third, and fourth points.

	Having overruled Appellant’s four points, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

									PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED:  April 6, 2006
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

SourceForge, Inc.Mountain View, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-92409;
333-92391; 333-38768; 333-38766; 333-38874; 333-59096; 333-71944; 333-101965;
and 333-116778) of SourceForge, Inc. of our reports dated October 8, 2007,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule and the effects of the adjustments to the consolidated financial
statements for the year ended July 31, 2005 to retrospectively apply the change
as discussed in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements, and the
related financial statement schedule, and managements assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
of SourceForge, Inc.s internal control over financial reporting, which appears
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

|/s/ Stonefield Josephson, Inc.  | 
|------------------------------- | 
|                                | 
|San Francisco,
      California | 
|October 8,
      2007           | 

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 13274 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:13

- cr - 00019

- GAP

- TBS

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus DEMETRICES TAVARES MITCHELL, Defendant

- Appellant.

_______________ _________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (April 2, 2014) Before TJOFLAT , MARCUS and JORDAN , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Charles M. Greene, appointed counsel for Demetrices Mitchell in this dire ct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Mitchell

Case: 13-13274 Date Filed: 04/02/2014 Page: 1 of 22 and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s as sessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Mitchell’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED
.

Case: 13-13274 Date Filed: 04/02/2014 Page: 2 of 2
#### STATE v. WINSTEAD

No. 27 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 750.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 March 1978.
#### KARRIKER v. SIGMON

No. 88 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 224.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 January 1980.
# C_2011115EN.01000901.xml

| 13.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/9

---

Closure notice regarding multiple complaints on collective rights management in Spain

(reference No CHAP/2010/00310)

2011/C 115/06

By the pre-closure notice published in the OJ C 353, 28.12.2010, p. 17 regarding multiple complaints on collective rights management in Spain, (reference No CHAP/2010/00310) complainants were informed of the result of the Commission's examination of their complaints and of its intention to proceed with the closure of the dossier.

Given the absence of a response from the complainants within the indicated period of 30 days from the publication of the pre-closure notice, the Commission hereby confirms that their complaints were closed on the date of publication of this notice.

---
Case 3:10-cr-00012-LC   Document 2   Filed 11/18/10   Page 1 of 1
* 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

October 3, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 06-30418

Summary Calendar

_____________________

PAULINE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport

USDC No. 5:04-CV-2565

__________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the court is affirmed for these reasons:

1. Dr. Dixon’s conclusions were not accepted by the administrative judge for

substantial reasons. No clinical findings are shown in Dr. Dixon’s
2

examination records to support his statements of radiating pain and

numbness etc. The specialist did not find these symptoms. No other doctor

reached the same conclusion as Dr. Dixon.

2. While Ms. Richardson may suffer from disc deterioration and some nerve

root compression, the record does not show motor or sensory loss and the

impairment listed in § 1.04(A).

3. We are unable to say that the evidence does not support the findings of the

administrative law judge. We must therefore affirm the judgment that

affirms the Commissioner’s decision.

AFFIRMED.
N0.01-15-00367-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

REYNALDO ZAMORA,

Appellant

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

APPEAL FROM

THE 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 87-0140

FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME IN WinCH TO FILE STATE'S BRIEF

Brian Erskine

Criminal District Attorney

712 South Stagecoach Trail, Suite 2057

San Marcos, Texas 78666

State Bar No. 24074182

Attorney for the State ofTexas

brian.erskine@co.hays.tx.us

Page 1

ACCEPTED

01-15-00367-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/28/2015 3:48:44 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/28/2015 3:48:44 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICE OFTHE FIRST COURT OFAPPEALS:

The State files this First Motion for Extension ofTime in Which to File State's

Brief, and in support states:

L The State's current deadline for filing its briefis January 6,2016.

2. This is the State's first Motion for Extension of Time in which to file its

brief

3. The State respectfully requests an extension of approximately thirty days,

until February 5,2016 in which to file its brief

4. This extension is not being sought to cause undue delay, but to seek justice.

Respectfully submitted,

Brian Erskine

Asst. Criminal District Attorney

P.O. Box 12548

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

State BarNo.24074182

Attorney for the State ofTexas

Page 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy ofthe foregoing brief has been email-delivered to:

Alexander L. Calhoun viaemail: alcalhoun@earthlink.net on this the 28th day of

December, 2015.

fBrian Erskine

Asst. Criminal District Attorney

Page 3
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC     Document 32      Filed 07/02/2007     Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
10.7


 


EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of January 1, 2020 (the “Effective
Date”), between Rhino GP LLC (“Employer”) and Scott Morris (“Employee”).


 


W
I T N E S S E T H


 


WHEREAS,
Employee is currently employed by Employer pursuant to an Employment Agreement dated October 1, 2015 (as amended, the “Prior
Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS,
Employer and Employee now desire to amend the Prior Agreement, and have executed this Amendment to evidence the terms of their
agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.
The first sentence of Section 1 of the Prior Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following language:


 


“The
Employer hereby shall employ Employee as its Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President continuing from the Effective Date
until December 31, 2020, unless sooner terminated as herein provided or extended by mutual agreement of the parties (the “Employment
Term”), with such duties customary to such position as Employer may reasonably designate during the Employment Term.”


 


2.
All other terms and conditions in the Prior Agreement shall remain unchanged except to the extent specifically modified herein.


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE TO FOLLOW]


 




    	1



    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	EMPLOYER:
	 	 	 
	 	Rhino
    GP LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Richard A. Boone
	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/
    Scott Morris
	 	 	Scott
    Morris


 




    	2
# CE2013249EN.01007101.xml

| 30.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 249/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 249/71

---

Tuesday 14 February 2012Participation of Morocco in Union programmes ***

P7_TA(2012)0035

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 February 2012 on the Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the general principles for the participation of Kingdom of Morocco in Union programmes (12712/2010 – C7-0430/2010 – 2010/0125(NLE))

2013/C 249 E/23

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (12712/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (12712/2010),

| — | having regard to the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the general principles for the participation of Morocco in Union programmes (12711/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the general principles for the participation of Morocco in Union programmes (12711/2010),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217, Article 218(6)(a) and Article 218(8), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0430/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217, Article 218(6)(a) and Article 218(8), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0430/2010),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0016/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0016/2012),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Kingdomof Morocco. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Kingdomof Morocco.

---
#### LARSEN v. SEDBERRY

No. 103 PC.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 166.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 12 January 1982.