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

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2464

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Nelson Olmeda, also known as Diego

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: March 15, 2018

Filed: March 29, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Nelson Olmeda directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court

1

following his guilty plea to drug charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and

The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing

whether the sentence was impermissibly enhanced under 21 U.S.C. § 851.

We conclude that, absent any allegation that the decision was based on an

improper factor, it was within the government’s discretion to subject Olmeda to the

enhanced sentence, see United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 761-62 (1997); and

that his prior felony drug conviction was a permissible basis for the enhancement, see

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(b)(3) (possession of more than 4 ounces

of marijuana is “state jail felony”); Texas Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (state jail felony

is punishable by confinement for up to 2 years); United States v. Jones, 559 F.3d 831,

837 (8th Cir. 2009) (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 851 permit use of simple felony

drug possession conviction for enhancement).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                           8,627
<SECURITIES>                                   118,113
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,636
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    180,399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               437,173
<PP&E>                                          66,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 548,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,502
<BONDS>                                          6,500
<COMMON>                                        87,076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     380,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   548,503
<SALES>                                        430,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               434,288
<CGS>                                          240,413
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  343,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 90,761
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,574
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             57,187
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    57,187
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69
        

</TABLE>
Summary of certain stock option grants




 EXHIBIT 10.40 
  
 Summary of Stock Option Grants made to Named Executive Officers 
  
 On February 22, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved the following grant of options to purchase shares of Align common
stock to certain of our employees (including each of our named executive officers). Except for the vesting schedule set forth below, the material terms of each of the stock option agreements is identical to the form of option agreement filed with
our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004. The following table sets forth information regarding the option grants to each of our named executive officers: 
  

						
	 Name

	  	Number of
Securities
Underlying
Options
Granted

	  	Exercise
Price


	 Thomas M. Prescott,
 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
	  	150,000	  	$	7.35
	 Eldon M. Bullington,
 Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
	  	125,000	  	$	7.35
	 David S. Thrower,
 Vice President, Global Marketing
	  	120,000	  	$	7.35
	 Len M. Hedge,
 Vice President, Manufacturing
	  	120,000	  	$	7.35
	 Roger E. George
 Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, and General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	  	115,000	  	$	7.35

  
 Each of the above
options vest in accordance with the following schedule: 25% of the shares subject to the option were vested and exercisable on the date of grant, and 2.083% of the shares subject to the option become vested and exercisable each month thereafter.
Amendment of Employment Agreement between NW Mutual Ins. Co. and Donna James



 Exhibit 10.30.1 
  
 AMENDMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of March 1, 2005, by and between Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (the
“Company”) and Donna James (the “Executive”). 
  
 WHEREAS the Company and the Executive have entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2000 (the “Employment Agreement”), and the parties now wish to amend the Employment Agreement.

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending
to be legally bound, hereby agree that the Employment Agreement is amended as follows: 
  
 1. Section 2.3(b)(vi) is hereby amended to revise the last two sentences to read as follows: 
  
 The benefits under this subsection (vi) shall be paid in the same forms and at the same times as Executive’s benefits under the
applicable Plans described above are paid (or would have been paid had Executive’s interest in the applicable Plans been fully vested). The benefits payable under this subsection (vi) and subsection (vii) below shall not result in any
duplication of benefits. 
  
 2. Section
2.3(b)(vii) is amended by revising the last sentence to read as follows: 
  
 The benefits under this subsection (vii) shall be paid in the same forms and at the same times as Executive’s benefits under the applicable Plans described above are paid (or would have been paid had
Executive’s interests in the applicable Plans been fully vested). 
  
 3. Section 3.4(b)(vii) is revised by amending the last sentence to read as follows: 
  
 The benefits under this subsection (vii) shall be paid in the same forms and at the same times as Executive’s benefits under the
applicable Plans described above are paid (or would have been paid had Executive’s interests in the applicable Plans been fully vested), as in effect immediately before the Change of Control. 
  









 4. In all respects not amended, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and
confirmed. 
  
 WITNESS the following signatures:

  

									
	 	 	 	 	 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

	 	 	 	 	 COMPANY

				
	 	 	 	 	 By:
	 	 
	Donna James	 	 	 	 	 	 
					
	 Date
	 	 	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 
					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 

  

 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHNNY MACON PLEASANTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-21, CA-98-153-5-F) Submitted: June 3, 2003 Decided: June 30, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Macon Pleasants, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Johnny Macon Pleasants seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasants has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Annual
      Statement of Compliance**


**SACO
      I Trust 2006-5**




VIA:
      EMAIL




Bear
      Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC


383
      Madison Avenue


New
      York,
      New York10179


regabnotifications@bear.com




LaSalle
      Bank National Association


135
      South
      LaSalle Street, Suite 1511


Chicago,
      IL60603




Re: The
      Pooling and Servicing agreement dated as of April 1, 2006 (the “Agreement”),
      among Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, as Depositor and Purchaser,
      EMC Mortgage Corporation, as Sponsor and Company, LaSalle Bank National
      Association, as Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, and Citibank,
      N.A., as Trustee.




I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Securities Administrator hereby certify that:




(1) A review of the activities of the Securities Administrator during the
      preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Securities Administrator
      under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and




(2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Securities
      Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all
      material respects throughout such year or a portion thereof.




Date: February
      1, 2007




LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Securities Administrator




/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Shore Gas Company;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  February 7, 2006

/s/  Thomas M. Patrick
#### In the Matter of Arthur T. Verbiest, Petitioner, against Stephen P. Kennedy, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County,

November 19, 1956.

*John C. Hart*for petitioner.

*Peter Campbell*Brown, *Corporation Counsel (Thomas C. Patterson*of counsel), for respondent.

*856Henry Epstein, J.

The Special Term has directed a trial of the issues of fact under section 1295 of the Civil Practice Act to determine whether the respondent police commissioner’s determination was ‘ ‘ arbitrary and capricious. ’ ’ That trial has been held. Petitioner, an honorably discharged veteran, was certified to the police department as eligible for appointment as a probationary patrolman. Three times the petitioner has been refused appointment and passed over although among the first three names on the eligible list. Unless, therefore, the police commissioner’s action can be said to be without reasonable basis, the respondent must prevail. We must, therefore, ascertain what basis there was for “ passing over ” petitioner.

The appropriate board of the police department after a hearing refused to pass petitioner and the commissioner refused to appoint him. Petitioner on cross-examination has admitted the truth of the grounds upon which the commissioner based his action. These grounds are found in the petitioner’s service record in the Navy. He was in the Navy from 1948 to 1952, when he was honorably discharged. Prior to his discharge he had been subject to disciplinary action four times. On one of these petitioner pleaded guilty to being absent without leave for three days, after which he was fined loss of pay and sentenced to hard labor for 18 days. On another charge petitioner also pleaded guilty of breaking restrictions and was fined $25 and loss of pay for 20 days. Both these infractions of regulations and the penalties came after court-martial. The other two offenses were minor and were not sufficiently serious to warrant court-martial.

The position taken by petitioner is that his honorable discharge “ is a testimonial of honorable service ” and that the commissioner cannot go behind that “ testimonial ” and base his action on the offenses in service prior to said honorable discharge. The court cannot accept this argument. The commissioner is not prohibited from reviewing the petitioner’s entire record and is not compelled to accept petitioner’s “ honorable discharge ” from service as an indorsement wiping out petitioner’s offenses as facts for the commissioner’s consideration. He is not attacking the honorable discharge “ collaterally.” His is the responsibility to appoint those to the police force whose records are not open to attack (New York City Charter, §§ 434, 884). We cannot conclude that his action in this case was unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary. Petition should, therefore, be dismissed.

Settle order.
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
              RAMP SERIES 2006-RS4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:       /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
          Name: Anthony N. Renzi
          Title: Managing Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         132,004
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  353,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    812,364
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,325,999
<PP&E>                                         825,831
<DEPRECIATION>                               (396,171)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,920,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          744,321
<BONDS>                                     15,671,321
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,167
<COMMON>                                           240
<OTHER-SE>                                (14,495,046)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,920,596
<SALES>                                        604,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               604,698
<CGS>                                          411,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  411,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               209,438
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,107)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (47,107)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (51,107)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 27, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50625-50626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19865]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of agreements are 
available through the Commission's Web site (http://www.fmc.gov) or 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3c7c1d2d7d6d2ddd2dfcac0dac0f3d5ded09dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="611513000504000f000d1812081221070c024f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 010714-043.
    Title: Trans-Atlantic American Flag Liner Operators Agreement.
    Parties: American President Lines, Ltd.; American Roll-On Roll-Off 
Carrier, LLC; Maersk Line Limited; and Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC.
    Filing Party: Howard A. Levy, Esq.; 80 Wall Street, Suite 1117; New 
York, NY 10005.
    Synopsis: The amendment deletes all authority for members to 
discuss or agree upon ocean port to port or other tariff rates or rules 
applicable to transportation between the United States and Europe.

    Agreement No.: 011426-041.
    Title: West Coast of South America Discussion Agreement.
    Parties: APL Co. Pte Ltd.; Compania Chilena de Navigacion 
Interoceanica, S.A.; Compania Sud Americana de Vapores, S.A.; Frontier 
Liner Services, Inc.; Hamburg-S[uuml]d; King Ocean Services Limited, 
Inc.; Maruba S.C.A.; Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A.; Seaboard 
Marine Ltd.; South Pacific Shipping Company, Ltd.; and Trinity Shipping 
Line.
    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M 
Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The amendment removes Hapag-Lloyd AG as a party to the 
agreement.

    Dated: August 22, 2008.


[[Page 50626]]


    By order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Karen V. Gregory,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19865 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>