alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and

10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 15, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN HENRY BROWNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4038

(D.C. No. 2:08-CR-00734-TS-1)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, John Henry Browne pled guilty to possession

of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment, the

mandatory minimum sentence. Although his plea agreement included a waiver of

his right to appeal his sentence, Mr. Browne has filed an appeal seeking to
1 We remind the government of its responsibility to attach a copy of the plea

agreement to the motion to enforce. See 10th Cir. R. 27.2(A)(2)(b). 

-2-

challenge his sentence. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver

in the plea agreement pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir.

2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

In determining whether an appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal

waiver, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily

waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in

a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. Mr. Browne concedes that the appeal is

within the scope of the appeal waiver, he knowingly and voluntarily entered his

plea, and nothing in the record discloses a reasonable basis for determining that

enforcing the appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. 

Accordingly, Mr. Browne has not established any of the applicable

exceptions to the enforcement of the appeal waiver. We therefore GRANT the

government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in the plea

agreement and DISMISS the appeal.1

 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 87 (Thursday, May 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 24926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10833]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date:  Wednesday, May 12, 2010; 2 p.m.-4 p.m.

Place:  Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status:  Closed to the Public.

Matters to be Considered: 
    Compliance Status Report:
    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: May 3, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10833 Filed 5-4-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       9,705,555
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            22,500,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               224,992
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 24,622,074
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      12,171,837
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        12,210,468
<LOANS>                                    129,853,709
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,987,104
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             204,696,932
<DEPOSITS>                                 185,136,428
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,447,627
<LONG-TERM>                                    385,627
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,978,373
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,548,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             204,696,932
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,954,282
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              579,793
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               166,886
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,700,961
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,295,043
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,696
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,397,222
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,127,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                783,668
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     783,668
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   469,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.78
<LOANS-NON>                                    247,413
<LOANS-PAST>                                    57,137
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,197,694
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  224,540
<RECOVERIES>                                    48,295
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,987,104
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,672,577
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        314,527
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 26919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11416]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Charter Renewals

ACTION: Notice of Renewal of the Advisory Committee on Commercial 
Remote Sensing Charter.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 2, and the General Services Administration 
(GSA) rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR Part 101-6, 
and after consultation with GSA, the Secretary of Commerce has 
determined that the renewal of the Advisory Committee on Commercial 
Remote Sensing (ACCRES) is in the public interest in connection with 
the performance of duties imposed on the Department by law. The ACCRES 
Charter was renewed on April 1, 2010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was first established in May 
2002, to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
Atmosphere on matters relating to the U.S. commercial remote-sensing 
industry and NOAA's activities to carry out the responsibilities of the 
Department of Commerce set forth in the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act 
of 1992 (15 U.S.C. Secs. 5621-5625).
    ACCRES will have a fairly balanced membership consisting of 
approximately 9 to 15 members serving in a representative capacity. All 
members should have expertise in remote sensing, space commerce or a 
related field. Each candidate member shall be recommended by the 
Assistant Administrator of the National Environmental Data and 
Information Service (NESDIS) and shall be appointed by the Under 
Secretary for a term of two years serving at the discretion of the 
Under Secretary.
    The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, and in 
compliance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 
Copies of the Committee's revised Charter have been filed with the 
appropriate committees of the Congress and with the Library of 
Congress.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hasenauer, Program Analyst, 
Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Office, NOAA Satellite and 
Information Services, 1335 East West Highway, Room 8119, Silver Spring, 
Maryland 20910; telephone (301) 713-1644, e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#266247504f42086e4755434847534354664849474708414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88cce9fee1eca6c0e9fbede6e9fdedfac8e6e7e9e9a6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a>.

Jane D'Aguanno,
Director, NOAA Commercial Remote Sensing, Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-11416 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-HR-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Ed. Blanton & Co. v. Brandenburg,

(Decided May 16, 1911.)

Appeal from Lee Circuit Court.

Liens — Material .Men’s 'Liens — Action to Enforce — Evidence—In this action to enforce a material men’s lien, evidence examined andi held insufficient, and the judgment denying the lien should ha affirmed.

OBEKNLEAF & HER&INIG.TON for appellant.

J. K. RiOiBEfftnS' for appellee.

Opinion op the Cotjet by

Judge Nunn

Affirming.

In 1908 Ed. Blanton was general manager of appellant, Ed. Blanton & Co., lumber merchants, of Richmond, Kentucky, James H. Brandenburg, appellee, and Gfeorge Goe were citizens of Beattyville, Lee County, Kentucky. Brandenburg contracted with Goe to furnish the material and erect a house in that city at a stipulated price. Goe completed the building and Brandenburg paid him therefor. After this had been done, Blanton filed a statement, within the time and as required by the statutes, to preserve a lien on the house and lot for the payment of some lumber appellant furnished to Goe to be used in the construction of the building, and this action was instituted to enforce the lien Several defenses were interposed, but it is necessary to consider only one of them. Appellee claims that appellant is estopped from asserting a lien on. his property for the following reason : At the time Goe took the contract to erect his house, Blanton came to Beattyville to see Goe for the purpose *652of trading Rim some dressed umber to go into the bouse, for some rough poplar lumber. Appellee stated that Groe and Blanton went down to where the rough lumber was, examined it and returned and that, according to bis recollection, they agreed that they bad traded. Groe swears positively that they did trade. Blanton swears that be made no trade; that be was under the influence' of liquor at that time and that be never made any trades while in that condition. Groe is im- ' peached by several witnesses for truth and veracity. Two or three witnesses testified that they saw a letter written by Blanton to Groe after the bouse was completed and paid for, telling him that be could go ahead and sell the rough lumber and that be could get him up a car load later when be wanted it. Blanton does not deny writing this letter or give any explanation of it. Groe says it bad reference to the lumber be bad agreed to take in exchange of the dressed lumber used in the bouse, and he is not contradicted. After receiving this letter, Koe did sell the lumber to others. If Blanton did agree to take this rough lumber in payment of the dressed lumber, be should not be allowed to change his mind after the bouse is completed and paid for, turn the rough lumber back to Groe and enforce a lien upon appellee’s property for the payment of the dressed lumber. The testimony seems to support appellee’s defense in this respect, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS RESTATED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                             489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (200)
<INVENTORY>                                        196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,372
<PP&E>                                             680
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (189)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,367
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,410)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,239
<SALES>                                            928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,576
<CGS>                                              946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,883
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,051
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    19
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,811)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,681)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,492)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)
        

</TABLE>
SECOND AMENDMENT TO PLAN AND AGREEMENT OF MERGER

This is an Amendment to that certain Plan and Agreement of Merger ("Agreement
of merger") by and between Fidelity Holdings, Inc., a Nevada Corporation
("Fidelity"), Major Automotive Group, Inc., a New York Corporation (the
"Merging corporation"), Major Acquisition Corp., a New York Corporation (the
"Surviving Corporation") and Bruce Bendell (the "Shareholder of the Merging
Corporation").

                                   BACKGROUND

The Merger Agreement was executed by all parties on or about April 21, 1997.

Article 1.2 of the Merger Agreement set a closing date (the "Closing Date")
on or before One Hundred Twenty (120) days from the execution of the Merger
Agreement unless such time period was mutually extended.

By amendment effective August 1, 1997, the parties hereto mutually extended
the Closing Date One Hundred Twenty (120) days from August 1, 1997.

The parties hereto have agreed that it is in their best interest to once
again mutually extend the closing date to a time and date mutually agreed
upon but in no event beyond One Hundred Twenty (120) days from the effective
date of this amendment, unless further extended by mutual consent.

NOW, THEREFORE, with the foregoing recital paragraphs incorporated herein by
this reference, and for other good and valuable consideration acknowledged to
have been exchanged and received, the parties hereto, intending to be legally
bound, hereby agree as follows:

                                   ARTICLE 1
                           EXTENSION OF CLOSING DATE

The closing of the transaction contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the
"Closing") shall occur on a mutually agreed upon date at the offices of
Fidelity, which date shall be not more than One Hundred Twenty (120) days
from November 20, 1997, unless mutually extended.

                                   ARTICLE 2
                       SURVIVAL OF MERGER AGREEMENT TERMS

All of the terms, conditions, liabilities, limitations and obligations set
forth in the Merger Agreement, except as expressly amended in this Agreement,
shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties have executed this Agreement effective the
20th day of November 1997.


FIDELITY HOLDINGS, INC.

/s/: Doron Cohen
-----------------------------
Doron Cohen, President


MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.

/s/: Bruce Bendell
-----------------------------
Bruce Bendell, President


MAJOR ACQUISITION CORP.

/s/: Doron Cohen
-----------------------------
Doron Cohen, Vice President

AS TO ARTICLE 2
<PAGE>

MAJOR CHEVROLET, INC.

/s/: Bruce Bendell
-----------------------------
Bruce Bendell, President


AS TO ARTICLE 2

MAJOR DODGE, INC.

/s/: Bruce Bendell
-----------------------------
Bruce Bendell, President


AS TO ARTICLE 2

MAJOR SUBARU, INC.

/s/: Bruce Bendell
-----------------------------
Bruce Bendell, President


AS TO ARTICLE 2

MAJOR CHRYSLER, PLYMOUTH, JEEP, EAGLE, INC.

/s/: Bruce Bendell
-----------------------------
Bruce Bendell, President


BRUCE BENDELL

/s/: Bruce Bendell
-----------------------------
#### Brashear v. Jent.

(Decided April 20, 1911.)

Appeal from Perry Circuit Court.

Question of Fact — Upholding Finding, of 'Chancellor — The questijn 'being purely one of fact, and the weight of the evidence supporting it, the finding of the chancellor is affirmed.

E. E. HOGG for appellant.

BAILEY P. WOOTON, JESSE MORGAN and' GREENE & VAN WINKLE for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lassing

Affirming.

The question involved upon this appeal is purely one of fact. Appellant claims title to a tract of land in Perry County, Kentucky, under a patent issued to him on the 5th of September, 1870. Appellee claims under title by adverse possession under patents issued, one in 1882, for one hundred acres, and another in 1889, for one hundred and fifty acres. There is no question but what the junior patents lapped upon the senior patent, and perhaps upon each other. The appellee, who claims under the junior patents, pleaded in the suit below that he had been in the actual, adverse, open and notorious possession of the land involved in this controversy, and which is covered by both the senior and junior patents, for the twenty-five years next before the institution of this suit; and this was the question tried out in the lower court.

The Chancellor was of opinion that the weight of the evidence supported the contention of appellee, the defendant in the court below, and so held. We are now asked, upon appeal, to reverse his finding and judgment.

The evidence is not at all satisfactory, and very conflicting, thus making this one of those cases where, with peculiar propriety, we may rest our decision upon the finding of the Chancellor, which we do.

Judgment affirmed.
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 64 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61554) and Amendment No. 470 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 8, 2015, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.












/s/ Ernst & Young LLP









Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


December 23, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial  statements  as of and for the  period  ended  June  30,  1998  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001009480                     
<NAME>                          AMERTRANZ WORLDWIDE HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               880
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     15,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                         515
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  23,745
<PP&E>                                             1,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1,211
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    38,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             26,085
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                        6,214
<COMMON>                                              84
<OTHER-SE>                                         2,026
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      38,547
<SALES>                                           97,784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  97,784
<CGS>                                             76,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     76,678
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  19,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (258)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (7,662)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                7,404
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       7,404
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.53
        


</TABLE>