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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 06-20989

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MARMOLEJO-SANCHEZ, also known as Jesus Rodriguez, also known as

Jesus Rodriguez-Marmolejo, also known as Ismael Rodriguez-Marmolejo

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-309-ALL

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Marmolejo-Sanchez (Marmolejo) appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and 24-month sentence for being illegally presentin the United States following

deportation. He argues that his sentence is unreasonable as a matter of law

because this court’s use of a presumption of reasonableness for sentences

imposed within the properly calculated guidelines range effectively reinstates

the mandatory guidelines regime struck down in United States v. Booker, 543

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-20989

2

U.S. 220 (2005). This argument is foreclosed. See Rita v. United States, 127

S. Ct. 2456, 2465 (2007). 

In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Marmolejo

challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony

and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of

the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is

“fully foreclosed from further debate.” United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492

F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 174 (Thursday, September 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 54885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22550]


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

 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked 
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 
409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing 
of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515, effective on 
the corresponding date shown below:
    License Number: 001727F.
    Name: Lysan Forwarding Company, Inc.
    Address: 5210 Yanceyville Road, Browns Summit, NC 27214.
    Date Revoked: August 18, 2010.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.
    License Number: 019428N.
    Name: Delta Trans Logistics, Inc.
    Address: 15522 Broadway Center, Gardena, CA 90248.
    Date Revoked: August 20, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.
    License Number: 012142NF.
    Name: Seaborne International, Inc. dba Seaborne Express Line.
    Address: 8901 S. La Cienega Blvd., Suite 101, Inglewood, CA 90301.
    Date Revoked: August 18, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain valid bonds.
    License Number: 020581NF.
    Name: Alpha Sun International, Inc.
    Address: 5300 Kennedy Road, Suite C, Forest Park, GA 30297.
    Date Revoked: August 20, 2010.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.
    License Number: 020736N.
    Name: Oceanwind International, Inc. dba OWI dba The Broadwell 
Group.
    Address: 415 S. Prospect Avenue, Suite 211, Redondo Beach, CA 
90277.
    Date Revoked: August 19, 2010.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 2010-22550 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 55832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22915]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments and Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to 
request approval on a new and/or currently approved information 
collection.

DATES: Submit comments on or before November 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments regarding whether this information 
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of 
the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are 
ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the 
collection, to Jihoon Kim, Director Secondary Market & 504 Sales, 
Office of Financial Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jihoon Kim, Office of Financial 
Assistance, 202-205-7530 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9939091969697d7929094b98a9b98d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9838081868687c7828084a99a8b88c78e869f">[email protected]</span></a> Curtis B. Rich, Management 
Analyst, 202-205-7030 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ae9fff8fee3f9a4f8e3e9e2caf9e8eba4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5d6c0c7c1dcc69bc7dcd6ddf5c6d7d49bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These forms capture the terms and conditions 
of SBA's new Secondary Market for First Mortgage Loan Pool Program. SBA 
needs this information in order to identify program participants, term 
of the financial transaction involving federal government guarantees 
and reporting on program efficiency, including the proper use of 
Recovery Act funds.
    Title: ``Secondary Market for Section 504 First Mortgage Loan 
Pool.''
    Description of Respondents: Secondary Market Participants.
    Form Number: 2401, 2402, 2403, 2404.
    Annual Responses: 12,490.
    Annual Burden: 33,075.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-22915 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1997

<CASH>                                           208,270
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    154,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      178,393
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 564,771
<PP&E>                                           251,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                    24,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,820,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,673,830
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          32,914
<OTHER-SE>                                    (1,496,679)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,463,765
<SALES>                                       14,648,492
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              14,648,492
<CGS>                                         13,684,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,365,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,346,534)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,346,534)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,346,534)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.04)
        


</TABLE>
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- EX-10.21




 Exhibit 10.21 

Executive Officer Annual Base Salaries 

On September 12, 2014, at a meeting of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Virobay, Inc. (the
“Company”), the Board approved annualized base salaries for the Company’s executive officers and certain employees as set forth below. The annualized base salaries are effective immediately as of the closing of the
Company’s initial public offering.
  

							
	 Name
	  	 Title
	  	Annualized Base Salary	 
	
Robert F. Booth, Ph. D.                
	  	 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	415,000	  
	 James H. Welch
	  	 Chief Financial and Accounting Officer, Secretary and Compliance Officer
	  	$	300,000	  
	 David B. Karpf, M.D.
	  	 Chief Medical Officer
	  	$	320,000	  
	 Anantha R. Sudhakar, Ph.D.
	  	 Vice President, Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls
	  	$	265,000
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF FIDUS INVESTMENT CORPORATION



|                                 |  |              |          | 
|-------------------------------- |  | ------------ | -------- | 
|Name                             |  | Jurisdiction |         
|FCAT Equity Corp.                |  |              | Delaware | 
|FCCG Equity Corp.                |  |              | Delaware | 
|FCMH Equity Corp.                |  |              | Delaware | 
|FCPBS Equity Corp.               |  |              | Delaware | 
|Fidus Investment GP, LLC         |  |              | Delaware | 
|Fidus Mezzanine Capital, L.P.    |  |              | Delaware | 
|Fidus Mezzanine Capital II, L.P. |  |              | Delaware | 
|Fidus Investment Holdings, Inc.  |  |              | Delaware |
Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_01.jpg  Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_02.jpg  Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_03.jpg  Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_04.jpg  Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_05.jpg  Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_06.jpg  Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_07.jpg  Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_08.jpg  Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_09.jpg  Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_10.jpg  Lee Anne Employ Agree_final_signed_Page_11.jpg
EXHIBIT 31.1

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

 

I, Timothy D. Boyd, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Peak Resorts, Inc.;

 

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.

 

 

|                                   |                               |
|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Date:   August 27, 2019 | /s/ Timothy D. Boyd                |
|                                   | Timothy D. Boyd                    |
|                                   | Chief Executive Officer, President |
|                                   | (Principal Executive Officer)      |
#### MILLARD SPIALTER T/A LINDSLEY ARMS APTS. v. PETER TESTA.

Feb. 11, 1980.

Petition for certification denied. (See 171 *N.J.Super.*181)
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3903

___________ Shirley Shontos, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner * of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant-Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 13, 2005 Filed: August 10, 2005

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, LAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In a prior appeal, a panel of this court held that Appellant Shirley Shontos was entitled to Disabled Widow’s Benefits. Shontos v. Barnhart , 328 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 2003). Subsequently, Shontos filed for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The Commissioner of Social Security denied Shontos’s request for attorney’s fees and the district court affirmed, finding that although Shontos eventually prevailed in her request for Disabled Widow’s Benefits, the Commissioner was substantially justified in denying benefits to Shontos.-2- Shontos is entitled to attorney’s fees unless “the position of the United States was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The Commissioner’s denial of attorney’s fees is substantially justified if the government’s decision to deny benefits to Shontos was “ clearly reasonable , well founded in law and fact, solid though not necessarily correct.” S.E.C. v. Kluesner , 834 F.2d 1438, 1440 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. 1,378.65 Acres of Land , 794 F.2d 1313, 1318 (8th Cir. 1986)) (emphasis in original). A district court’s order affirming the denial of attorney’s fees under the EAJA is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1439. “[T]he most powerful indicator of the reasonableness of the government’s position is the rationale of the court’s majority opinion in the first appeal.” Lauer v. Barnhart , 321 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2003). In the first appeal, this court reversed the district court because it gave insufficient weight to adverse evidence in the record. Shontos , 328 F.3d at 421-24, 425-27. Although this court ordered that Shontos be awarded disability benefits, the government’s decision to deny benefits to Shontos, though incorrect, was reasonable. The government’s position was supported by evidence in the record, and at the time the government chose to deny benefits to Shontos, “reasonable people could differ as to [the appropriateness of the contested action].” Pierce v. Underwood , 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (citations omitted); seealso Lauer , 321 F.3d at 765 (finding that the government’s position lacked “any evidence in its support”). Accordingly, Shontos is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the EAJA, and the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

______________________________
[No. 18460-9-III.

Division Three.

March 28, 2000.]

#### Gary J. Teagle, *Appellant,*v. Anthony F. Zak, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Okanogan County, No. 97-2-00291-7, Jack Burchard, J., entered May 4, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Kurtz, C.J., and Kato, J.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     TRIBUTE TO THE KENTUCKY DERBY

                                 ______

                             HON. MIKE WARD

                              of kentucky

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 9, 1995
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to pay tribute to one of 
America's most historic sporting events, the Kentucky Derby.
  Last Saturday, the first Saturday in May, the Kentucky Derby, also 
known as the greatest 2 minutes in sports, made its 121st running at 
Churchill Downs in Louisville. The Kentucky Derby, dating back to 1875, 
is rich in American history and intense sporting drama. It may strike 
many as excessive that so many events, including a fireworks display, a 
parade, a boat race, a hot air balloon race, and many others, precede 
an event that only lasts 2 minutes; however, there is no other sporting 
event like the Kentucky Derby.
  The Kentucky Derby, the first leg of the Triple Crown, is the mark by 
which all other races are judged and this year, as in previous years, 
it will set the stage for a possible Triple Crown winner.
  Over 130,000 people are estimated to have attended this year's 
running of the Kentucky Derby with nearly 50 million people estimated 
to have watched the televised coverage, making the Kentucky Derby one 
of the most watched sporting events in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay tribute and draw attention to a 
truly remarkable program which was in place at last Saturday's running 
of the Kentucky Derby.
  The program, coordinated by the Party Smart Organization, is a 
designated driver program at Churchill Downs in Louisville, which asked 
spectators to sign a pledge that they would be a designated driver. 
Designated drivers, individuals who pledge not to drink alcohol so that 
they may drive others home safely, have for years played an invaluable 
role at such sporting functions. It is through their restraint and 
leadership that many lives have been saved.
  Designated driver programs throughout the United States, at parks 
such as the Astrodome, Candlestick Park, the Meadowlands, and Yankee 
Stadium, have reminded millions of people of the importance of 
responsible drinking and have reminded people of the millions of lives 
that are placed in jeopardy by drinking and driving.
  When I attended the Kentucky Derby this year, I left Churchill Downs 
feeling more secure that my drive home would be safer due in large part 
to the efforts of these designated driver programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support and participate in their 
local designated driver programs. Together, we can help end the 
thousands of senseless deaths caused each year by drunk driving.

                          ____________________
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

DERRICK DESHAWN WILKERSON, 

 Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D13-4074 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

 Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Opinion filed July 18, 2014 

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Osceola County, 

Jon B. Morgan, Judge. 

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and 

Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

We affirm on all issues but write to address a scrivener’s error in the written 

sentencing order. 

The court orally pronounced that “as to Count-II, you’ll be sentenced to 25 years 

in the Florida Department of Corrections, 10 of which is a firearm mandatory/minimum . . 

. .” In conflict with the oral pronouncement, the written sentence reflects that a twenty-
2

year firearm mandatory minimum was imposed on Count II.1 The written sentence should 

be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. Croskey v. State, 71 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 

5th DCA 2011) (remanding for correction of erroneous written sentencing order to 

conform to oral pronouncement; explaining that written order imposing a twenty-year 

mandatory minimum pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), was 

erroneous where the jury specifically found appellant possessed but did not discharge a 

firearm and trial judge’s oral pronouncement of a ten-year minimum mandatory sentence 

pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), was correct); see also Douglas 

v. State, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1251 (Fla. 1st DCA June 11, 2014) (affirming judgment and 

sentence but remanding for correction of written sentence to match oral pronouncement). 

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s error. 

TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur. 

 1 The written sentence not only conflicts with the oral pronouncement but it also 

conflicts with the jury’s verdict finding that “the defendant did actually possess and carry 

display, use or threaten to use a firearm.” See § 775.087(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011) 

(providing that a defendant who possesses a firearm during the commission of the offense 

shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of ten years). On Count II, the 

jury did not find that the defendant discharged the firearm.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 75 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6227-S6228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         THE CHAPLAIN'S PRAYER

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first let me thank the Chaplain for his 
prayer today. This is a very important day for millions of Americans. 
It seems to me that it is time for reflection, to think about America, 
and to think about 55-plus million people who lost their lives in World 
War II. That includes civilians, innocent women and children, 
combatants on all sides, plus about 6 million Jews who suffered death 
in the Holocaust.
  This is a very important day. And later today I hope to submit a 
resolution about V-E Day, which I am certain the Senate will adopt. I 
will be looking for sponsors on both sides of the aisle.

                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, following leader time, there will be morning 
business until the hour of 12 noon with Senators permitted to speak for 
up to 5 minutes each.
  At 12 o'clock we will resume consideration of H.R. 956, the product 
liability bill.
  At 4 o'clock there will be a cloture vote on the pending substitute 
unless second-degree amendments are offered and can be voted upon. That 
may slip just a little bit. I understand there are one or two Senators 
who cannot be here right at 4 o'clock. The first three amendments 
should be filed by 1 o'clock today. Second-degree amendments should be 
filed by 3 o'clock today. [[Page S6228]] 
  A second cloture vote will occur tomorrow if cloture is not invoked 
today.
  It is also my hope that we might at least debate this evening the CIA 
nomination, Mr. Deutch. I think the administration would like to have 
that done. I think it is a 2-hour time agreement. We can debate that 
this evening, and have the rollcall vote tomorrow morning.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________
```
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 14

- 00514

- CR

AARON CHARLES BURTON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 351st District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1330899).

TO THE 351ST DISTRIC T COURT OF HARRIS CO UNTY, GREETINGS :

Before this Court, on the 9th day of April 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on June 6, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment

con tains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered April 9, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Higley.WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

October 2, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT