alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1576

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dominic Keith Pearson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

Submitted: November 2, 2018

Filed: November 27, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Dominic Keith Pearson directly appeals the below-Guidelines sentence the

district court

1

imposed after he pled guilty to sex crimes involving a minor. Counsel

1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

After careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in sentencing Pearson. The record reflects that the district court

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors—including the seriousness of the offenses

and Pearson’s history—and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence. See United States

v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v.

Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733

(8th Cir. 2009). This court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-2-
#### L. C. Simmons v. State.

No. 25643.

January 16, 1952.

*602Hon. Tom W. Morris, Judge Presiding.

*Mahlon L. Walters,*Jefferson, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the willful and negligent burning of woodland; the punishment, a fine of $50.00.

Our able state’s attorney has confessed error herein on the grounds that the information does not properly charge any offense.

It is evident from the record that both the state and the appellant considered that this was a prosecution under Article 1321, Penal Code. We arrive at this conclusion because the complaint and information were drawn in compliance with Willson’s Criminal Forms, Section 575, and appellant’s brief discusses said article.

Article 1388b-l, which became effective in 1939 (Acts 1939, 46th Legislature, page 242, as amended by Acts 1947, 50th Legislature, page 947, chapter 404, paragraph 1) superseded Article 1321; and prosecution herein, on August 29, 1951, should have been under said amended article and not under Article 1321, which had been repealed by implication.

The information herein would not support a conviction under the terms of Article 1388b-1 in that it fails to charge that the woods in question were “on land of which he is not in possession or control at the time of the setting of such fire”. Powell v. State, (Page 451 of this volume) 243 S. W. (2d) 586.

Further, this conviction cannot be supported under Article 1388-1 because the fine assessed herein is in the sum of $50.00, and the minimum fine provided by such article is $100.00. In Rutherford v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 605, 187 S. W. 481, in reversing a case where the punishment was less than the mini*603mum, we held that “no court in this state could assess a punishment that the law does not authorize.”

For the information of the bar, we call attention to two recent enactments of the legislature, Article 1321a and 1321b, which became effective on September 6, 1951 (8 days after the proceedings herein were had), and which, in our judgment, insofar as a charge of willful or negligent setting fire to woods, forest, grass or brush lands, repealed Article 1388b-1.

Because of the defect in the information, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
# RECEIVEDIN No. COURTOFCRIMINW APPEALS MAY 18 2S15 Court ofAppeals No. 05-13-01562-CR Trial Court No. F1262912-Q

PAUL ANGELO ESCOBAR, * IN THE COURT OF Petitioner * CRIMINAL APPEALS 

# VS. * OFTEXAS FILEDIN STATEOFTEXAS, * IN " 0FCRiM^ALAPPEALS MAY 22 2G15 Respondent * AUSTIN, TEXAS 

## AbelAcosta, C/erk

FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, the Petitioner in the above-styled and numbered cause, and moves the Courtto extend the time for filing the Petition for Discretionary Review, and in accordance with the appellate rules, submits the following facts: 

### 1. Trial Court: 204TMJudicial District Court 2. Date ofappealable order: 10-11-13 3. Trial Court Cause number: F12-62912-Q+ -
4. Paul Angelo Escobarvs. State ofTexas 

### 5. Offense for which Appellantwas convicted: Aggravated Robbery 6. Punishment assessed: 20y 7. Date Motion for New Trial filed: 10-29-13 

### 8. Date Notice ofAppeal filed: 10-29-13 9. Fifth District Court ofAppeals, Dallas, Texas 10.Appellate no. 05-13-01562-CR; Paul Angelo Escobar 

### 11.Date ofappellate opinion andjudgment: March 10, 2015 12.Deadline for filing petition for discretionary review: April 9, 2015 13. Length oftime requested for the extension: 30 days 14. The number ofextensions oftime which have been granted previously regarding this item: 0 

### 15.The facts relied upon to reasonably explain the need for an extension:
a. Counsel timely mailed a copy ofthe opinion and explanation of appellate rights to Appellant by certified mail. However, it was returned to counsel unclaimed on today's date, March 24, 2015, apparently because Appellant was transferred to a differentunit. Counsel has now 

### resentthe opinion and explanation ofappellate rights but due to the 

### delay, Appellant needs additional time to prepare a petition for discretionary review.WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Petitionerprays that this Honorable Court will extend the time within which to file the petition 

### for discretionary review.
Respectfully submitted,

Paul Angelo Escobar No. 1892438 Torres Unit 125 Private Road 4303 Hondo, Texas 78861 Pro se PetitionerCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify thatthe foregoing Motion was served on the Appellate Section, Dallas County District Attorney's Office, 133 N. RiverfrontBlvd., LB 19, Dallas, Texas 75207, by placing it in the U.S. mail on 

# 4r
. T&<LH Petitioner
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. Harry G. BECK, Trading as Rocks Express Company, Respondent.

No. 4250.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 6, 1938.

Charles Fahy, General Counsel, and Robert B. Watts, Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, both of Washington, D. C, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Consent order granting leave to petitioner to withdraw petition for enforcement without prejudice, and authorizing clerk to return the record to petitioner, filed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 75 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 75

To prohibit travel by Members, officers, and employees of the House of 
                  Representatives at lobbyist expense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

   Mr. Goss introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit travel by Members, officers, and employees of the House of 
                  Representatives at lobbyist expense.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF TRAVEL BY MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES OF 
              THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT LOBBYIST EXPENSE.

    (a) In General.--A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
Representatives may not perform any travel at the expense of a person 
who is required to register under section 308 of the Federal Regulation 
of Lobbying Act (2 U.S.C. 267).
    (b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``Member of the 
House of Representatives'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate or 
Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.4


                           STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM

1.  The Company is authorized to use up to $2 million of its surplus lawfully
available for stock repurchases to repurchase, from time to time,  shares of its
common stock, in open-market purchases, private transactions or otherwise.

2.  The Executive Committee shall, from time to time, determine the price and
volume levels and other conditions applicable to the Company's repurchase of
shares of its common stock.

3.  Subject to

                    (a) such price and volume levels and other conditions as may
                    be determined, from time to time, by said Committee,

                    (b) compliance with the Company's Credit Agreement with
                    Fleet Capital Corporation, and

                    (c) compliance with Rule 10b-18, and other applicable Rules,
                    under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (other
                    than during periods when the requirements of said Rules have
                    been suspended),

               the President - Chief Executive Officer of the Company, acting
               jointly with its Executive Vice President - Chief Financial
               Officer, are authorized to use up to $2 million of the Company's
               surplus lawfully available for the repurchase of its stock to
               repurchase shares of its common stock in open-market purchases,
               private transactions or otherwise, from time to time.

4.  This Stock Repurchase Program shall remain in effect until $2 million is
used by the Company to repurchase shares of its common stock, unless the Program
is terminated by the Board of Directors or its Executive Committee before then.
In implementation of said Program, the broker's account resolutions submitted by
Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette and attached hereto, and any substantially similar
resolutions of any other brokerage firms with whom the Company may open an
accounts for purposes of the Program, are herewith adapted as resolutions of the
Executive Committee
LETTER REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXHIBIT 15.

To the Board of Directors
and Stockholders of
Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.
Santa Rosa, California

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited
interim financial information of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the periods ended January 31, 1999 and 1998, as indicated
in our report dated February 18, 1999; because we did not perform an audit,
we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is indicated in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 1999 is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-41050, No. 33-
26271, No. 33-12276, No. 33-65132, No. 33-60891, No. 333-13013 and No. 333-
69157 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-61177 and No. 33-65319
on Forms S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the
Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report
prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and
11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


San Jose, California
March 17, 1999
























<PAGE>
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 848

AN ACT

To increase the amount authorized to be approtional Military Park in Georgia. garding the Chickamauga and Chattanooga Na- priated for assistance for highway relocation re-
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 848

AN ACT

To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for

assistance for highway relocation regarding the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park in Georgia.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 848 EH

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA2 TIONS.

3 Section 1(c) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize

4 and direct the National Park Service to assist the State

5 of Georgia in relocating a highway affecting the Chicka6 mauga and Chattanooga National Military Park in Geor7 gia’’, approved December 24, 1987 (101 Stat. 1442), is

8 amended by striking ‘‘$30,000,000’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘$51,900,000’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47140-47141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18723]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Fossil Energy


Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

    This notice announces a meeting of the Methane Hydrate Advisory 
Committee. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 
770) requires that notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 3 to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: TMS, Inc., 955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW., Suite 1500, 
Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edith Allison, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 
202-586-1023.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Methane Hydrate 
Advisory Committee is to provide advice on potential applications of 
methane hydrate to the Secretary of Energy, and assist in developing 
recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy Methane 
Hydrate Research and Development Program.
    Tentative Agenda:
    <bullet> Discussion of information, including fact sheet and 
PowerPoint presentation, to be provided to the 2008-2009 Executive 
Branch Transition teams.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The 
Chairman of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the 
orderly conduct of business. If you would like to file a written 
statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the 
meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the 
items on the agenda, you should contact Edith Allison at the address or 
telephone number listed above. You must make your request for an oral 
statement at least five business days prior to the meeting, and 
reasonable provisions will be made to include the presentation on the 
agenda. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public 
Reading Room, Room 1G-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except federal holidays.


[[Page 47141]]


    Issued at Washington, DC, on August 7, 2008.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Committee, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-18723 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-23-2013

Ramiro Enrique Rojas v. Attorney General United

States

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 12-1227

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Ramiro Enrique Rojas v. Attorney General United States" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1268.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1268
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1227

___________

RAMIRO ENRIQUE ROJAS,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

__________

PRESENT: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, 

FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, 

GREENAWAY, JR., VANASKIE, and GREENBERG1, Circuit Judges

ORDER

The Court, sua sponte, orders rehearing en banc in the above captioned case. 

It is ordered that the Clerk of this Court list the case for rehearing en banc

at the convenience of the Court.

By the Court,

/s/ Theodore A. McKee 

Chief Circuit Judge

Date: January 23, 2013

Trg/cc: Tracy M. Hubbard, Esq.

Craig R. Shagin, Esq.

Timothy Hayes, Esq.

Andrew J. Oliveira, Esq.

 

1Will participate as a member of the en banc court pursuant to 3d. Cir. I.O.P. 9.6.4.
183 La. 431

#### STATE v. STEPHENS.

No. 33565.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1935.

R. C. Gamble, of Mansfield, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. B. Cav-anaugh, Dist. Atty., of Leesville, and Less-ley P. Gardiner, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

FOURNET, Justice.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor in the parish of DeSoto, contrary to an ordinance prohibiting the sale of liquor in that parv ish and was sentenced to pay a fine of $301 and costs of prosecution, and in default of the payment of the fine and costs, to be confined in the parish jail subject to work on the public roads as provided by law, for a period of five months. From this conviction and sentence, the defendant has appealed.

The defendant relies on one bill of exception, reserved when the court overruled his motion to quash the indictment. The state has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no motion for a new trial was filed in the district court.

Article 559 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “no new trial can be granted on appeal unless a motion for same has been made and refused in the lower court.”

The defendant, having failed to file a motion for a new trial and thereby exhaust his remedies in the trial court by submitting for review the rulings there made and complained of before appealing to this court, in accordance with the requirements of article 559 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not entitled to be heard before this court. State v. Stinson, 174 La. 510, 141 So. 44; State v. Eubanks, 179 La. 92, 153 So. 31.

For the reasons assigned, the verdict and sentence of the district court are affirmed.
Exhibit 10.45 Amendments to The Remington Arms Company,
Inc. Pension and Retirement Plan and 
Supplemental Pension Plan The
Board of Directors of Remington Arms Company, Inc. (the Company), upon the
recommendation of the Companys Benefit and Investment Committee, approved
amendments to the Remington Arms Company, Inc. Pension and Retirement Plan (the
Defined Benefit Plan) and the Remington Supplemental Pension Plan (the
Supplemental Plan) on October 9, 2006. As
a result of the amendment to the Defined Benefit Plan, future accrued benefits
will be frozen as of January 1, 2008. The amendment is effective for all
pension eligible employees who are not covered under the collective bargaining
agreement in Ilion, New York. For service accrued through 2007, the pension
calculation will not change. Years of service will continue to accrue for
eligibility for early retirement. Additionally, as a result of the amendment to
the Supplemental Plan, for affected employees, including each of the Named
Executive Officers, future accrued benefits will be frozen as of January 1,
2008.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19236]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11370; New Hampshire Disaster 
<greek-i>NH-00006

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of NEW HAMPSHIRE 
(FEMA-1782-DR), dated 08/11/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornado, and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 07/24/2008.

DATES: Effective Date: 08/11/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/10/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/11/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 08/11/2008, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Belknap, Carroll, Rockingham.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    New Hampshire: Coos, Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Strafford.
    Maine: Oxford, York.
    Massachusetts: Essex.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage and for 
economic injury is 11370.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002 and 59008).

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-19236 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 137055 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 137055 COA: 285064 Kent CC: 02-007605-FC SCOTT ALAN PARDEE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 30, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

s1117 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2008

Clerk