alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41232

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OCTAVIO ESTRADA-VALDEZ, also known as 

Jacinto Estrada-Valdez,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-97-CR-194-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Octavio Estrada-Valdez, proceeding pro se, appeals his

guilty-plea conviction for reentering the United States without

the consent of the Attorney General after having been previously

arrested and deported. He argues 1) that his guilty-plea was

involuntary because his attorney and the prosecutor promised him

prior to pleading guilty that his sentence would be less than

what he actually received and 2) that he was denied due process

by not being given sufficient time to review the addendum to the 
No. 97-41232

-2-

PSR and object to the recommendation therein. 

Estrada-Valdez’s contention that the Government promised him

a particular sentence is not supported by the record. 

Furthermore, Estrada-Valdez was informed of the maximum sentence

he could receive, and his argument is without merit. See United

States v. Gracia, 983 F.2d 625, 629 (5th Cir. 1993)(erroneous

prediction by prosecutor and defense attorney of defendant’s

sentence not grounds for vacating a guilty-plea when defendant

was informed of the maximum sentence he could receive).

Both Estrada-Valdez and his attorney stated at the

sentencing hearing that they had reviewed the presentence report

addendum, and neither indicated that more time was needed to

challenge the recommendation contained therein. Estrada-Valdez’s

argument that he was denied due process by not having sufficient

time to review and object to the addendum is without merit. 

United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380, 403 (5th Cir. 1997). 

His motion for this court to accept his pro se brief and excerpts

in the form presented is GRANTED. His motion for an enlargement

of time to file a reply brief is DENIED. His conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 7241, AS ADOPTED 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE 

SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

I, Michael A. Gerlich, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the “Registrant”); 

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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’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 occurredduring 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 controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof 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 arereasonably 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: March 31, 2006
EXHIBIT 10.6

                            FORM OF LOCK-UP AGREEMENT

                                                        ____________ __, 2000

U.S. Mobile Services, Inc.
725 Primera Blvd., Suite 200
Lake Mary, Florida 32746

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      In order to induce certain investors to participate in a proposed private
placement (the "Offering") of shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share
(the "Common Stock") of U.S. Mobile Services, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), the undersigned hereby agrees that, subject to the exception set
forth below, for a period of six (6) months from the closing of the Offering,
the undersigned will not directly or indirectly, issue, offer to sell, sell,
grant an option for the sale of, assign, transfer, pledge, hypothecate,
distribute or otherwise encumber or dispose of any shares of Common Stock or
securities convertible into, exercisable or exchangeable for or evidencing any
right to purchase or subscribe for any shares of Common Stock (either pursuant
to Rule 144 of the rules and regulations under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended or otherwise) or dispose of any beneficial interest therein without the
prior written consent of the Company. The undersigned understands and
acknowledges that in connection with the above, the Company shall deliver
instructions to its transfer agent authorizing it to place appropriate stop
transfer orders on the Company's ledgers. Notwithstanding the above, it is
agreed that during each calendar month during the six month period, the
undersigned may sell an amount of Common Stock equal to 5% of the total amount
owned by the undersigned.

                                             Very truly yours,


                                             By: ______________________________
                                                 Name:
```

                                                                Exhibit 10.20(i)

                                              December 22, 2005

Mr. Judah Wolf
4206 Laurel Oak Way
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida  32082

Dear Judah:

         The Compensation Committee has considered your proposal as set forth in
your letter, dated September 28, 2005, and proposes the following in response:

         1.   The "Employment Period" as defined in the Employment Agreement,
dated as of December 31, 2001, between you and ATC (the "Agreement") will be
extended beyond the scheduled expiration date of December 31, 2005 until either
party gives written notice to the other of his or its election to terminate.
Notice of an election to terminate must be given at least 90 days in advance of
the scheduled termination date.

         2.   The current terms of your employment as provided in the Agreement
shall continue.

         3.   As modified by this letter, the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.

         If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please sign the two copies
of this letter in the space provided below and return them to me.

         Please call me if you have any questions.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          /S/ Kathleen M. Kelly

                                          Kathleen M. Kelly
                                          Vice President - Administration

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

     /S/ Judah Wolf
--------------------------
         Judah Wolf
```
dwsf101.htm






  




 









 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


This AMENDMENT NO. 1 dated as of the 1st day of April, 2014 to the MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (the “Management Agreement”) made as of January 1, 2004, among MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM SELECT L.P. (formerly, Morgan Stanley Spectrum Select L.P.), a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC (formerly, Demeter Management Corporation), a Delaware limited liability company (“CMF”), and GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Advisor”), to reduce the monthly management fee rate payable to the Advisor.  Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Management Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, all provisions contained in the Management Ag-reement remain in full force and effect and are modified only to the extent necessary to provide for the amendments set forth below.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Management Agreement as follows:


 


1.           The monthly management fee rate referred to in the Section entitled “Fees” in the Management Agreement is hereby reduced to a monthly management fee rate equal to 1/12 of 1.75% (a 1.75% annual rate).


 


2.           The foregoing amendment shall take effect as of the 1st day of April, 2014.


 


3.           This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute the same agreement.


 


4.           This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.






  





  











  








 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Management Agreement has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the date first above written.


 



	
  

	
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM SELECT L.P.







 



	
  

	
By:  Ceres Managed Futures LLC







 



	
  

	
(General Partner)







 



	
  

	
By:

	
  /s/ Alper Daglioglu

	
 







 



	
  

	
Alper Daglioglu







 



	
  

	
President and Director







 



	
  

	
CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC







 



	
  

	
By:

	
  /s/ Alper Daglioglu

	
 







 



	
  

	
Alper Daglioglu







 



	
  

	
President and Director







 



	
  

	
GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.







 



	
  

	
By:

	
  /s/ Robert E. Murray

	
 







 



	
  

	
Name:  Robert E. Murray







 



	
  

	
Title:    CEO
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 6, 2008*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.103 Nonfarm Noncorporate Business** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

DAVID M. WILLIAMS, § 

 § No. 244, 2018 

Defendant Below, § 

 Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court 

 § of the State of Delaware 

 v. § 

 § Cr. ID Nos. 9803018202A (N) 

STATE OF DELAWARE, § 9803018202B (N) 

 § 

Plaintiff Below, § 

Appellee. § 

Submitted: May 22, 2018 

Decided: June 4, 2018 

 ORDER 

On May 7, 2018, the Clerk issued a notice, by certified mail, directing the 

appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for the appellant’s 

failure to pay the filing fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis requesting 

a waiver of the fee. The appellant received the notice to show cause on May 10, 

2018 and has not responded to the notice within the required ten-day period. 

Dismissal of the appeal is deemed to be unopposed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice
#### PAN AMERICAN ROOM, Inc. v. PAM, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
KAMARCCUS JALEEL WEBSTER , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3211

_____________________________/ Opinion filed May 10, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Edward P. Nickinson, II I , Judge

. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner , Assistant Public Defender, Miami , for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appellant was convicted of one count of battery, one count of aggravated battery with great bodily harm by discharging a firearm, and two counts of2 aggravated assault by threat with a firearm. We affirm these convictions without further comment but revers e and remand for resentencing pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams v. State , 41 Fl a . L. Weekly S73 ( Fla.
Mar. 3, 2016). Below, the trial court imposed consecutive mandatory

- minimum sentences for the aggravated battery and ag gravated assault offenses pursuant to this Court’s case law interpreting the 10

- 20

- Life statute. The court noted that such sentences were “required by law.” Appellant’s counsel acknowledged consecutive sentencing was required but nonetheless objected. Although the trial court was
correct at the time, the supreme court subsequently held that consecutive sentence s

are permissible but not mandatory. See Williams , 41 Fla. L. Weekly at S 74 (“If . . . multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory. In other words, a trial judge has discretion to order the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively, but may impose the sentences

concurr ently.” ) (citations omitted). The State concedes that resentencing is prope r in this case. As such, we affirm Appellant’s convictions but remand for resentencing, at which time the trial court may determine whether to impose the mandatory

- minimum portion s of Appellant’s sentence s consecutively or concurrently.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.3 RAY , BILBREY , and JAY , J J

. , CONCUR.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification PursuantTo 18 U.S.C. 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cyanotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey H. Sakamoto, VicePresident – Finance and Administration of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)                                      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

 

2)                                      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | August 12, 2005 |                                                                        | /s/ | Jeffrey H.  Sakamoto |   |
|--------|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|----------------------|--------|
|   |                 |     Jeffrey  H. Sakamoto                                |
|   |                 | *    Vice  President-Finance & Administration* |
|   |                 | *    and  C hief Financial Officer*                     |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02688-CMA-BNB

FLOYD’S 99 HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDE’S BARBERSHOP,INC.,

JUDE’S BARBERSHOP – OTTAWA, INC., 

JUDE’S BARBERSHOP – CASCADE, INC.

JUDE’S BARBERSHOP – KALAMAZOO, INC., 

JUDE’S BARBERSHOP – LANSING DT, INC., 

JUDE’S BARBERSHOP – LANSING, INC., 

JUDE’S BARBERSHOP – PORTAGE, INC., Michigan corporations, and 

JBI-COTTONWOOD, LLC, 

JBI-EAST PARIS, LLC, 

JBI-WEALTHY, LLC, 

JBI-STANDALE, LLC, 

JBI-WALLED LAKE, LLC,

JBI-OKEMOS, LLC, Michigan limited liability companies, and

 THOMAS MARTIN,

Defendants.

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.

Pursuant to the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue of Judge Christine M.

Arguello entered on September 28, 2012 it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper

Venue filed November 30, 2011 is GRANTED in part as to the lack of personal

Case 1:11-cv-02688-CMA-BNB Document 66 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
jurisdiction, DENIED AS MOOT IN PART as to whether Colorado would be a proper

venue, and DENIED in part as to Defendants’ request to transfer venue. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, although each party shall bear its own attorneys’

fees, Defendants shall have their costs by the filing of a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of

the Court within fourteen days of the entry of judgment. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 28th day of September, 2012.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/Sandra Hartmann

Sandra Hartmann

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02688-CMA-BNB Document 66 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ending January 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Peter A. Edison, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, and I, Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr., Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: (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 results of operations of the Company. Date: April 1, 2005
    /s/ Peter A. EdisonPeter A. EdisonChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. Date: April 1, 2005
    /s/ Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary
Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement has been provided to Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. and will be retained by Bakers
Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-82,195-01

EX P ARTE BIL LY AMM ONS, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 18861-B(1) IN THE 104TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM TAYLOR COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Ap p l i ca n t wa s convicted of burg lary of a habitation and sente nced to ten year s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that t ri al co u n sel failed to investigate whether he used or exhibi ted a deadly wea

pon. Applicant has alleg ed facts t hat, i f t ru e, m ight entitle him to relief
. Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S. W
. 2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 3342

S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)
. I f t he trial court elects t o hold a h ea ring , it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Appl i ca n t is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and co n cl u s i ons of law as to whether counsel’s conduct was defic ient and Applicant was prejudice d. The trial co u rt s h al l also make any other finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s c laim for habe as cor pus relief
. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order
. A supplemental transcr i p t co n t ai n ing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of t his order
. Any extensions of t ime shall be obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Nove mber 5, 2014 Do not publish