alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-3938

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DONALD LAMAR BURROUGHS,

Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 1-08-cr-00435-002)

District Judge: Hon. Sylvia H. Rambo

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 22, 2010

BEFORE: SMITH, FISHER, and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: July 13, 2010)

 

OPINION

 

COWEN, Circuit Judge

Donald Lamar Burroughs has appealed his sentence and his counsel has moved,

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), for permission to withdraw as

counsel. We will affirm Burroughs’ sentence and grant the motion of counsel.
2

I. BACKGROUND

Burroughs pleaded guilty to one count of distribution and possession with intent

to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(A)(iii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The PSR recommended an advisory guidelines

range of 87-108 months of imprisonment. Burroughs filed objections and the District

Court held a sentencing hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the District Court

sentenced Burroughs to a term of imprisonment of fifty months. In reaching this

sentence, the District Court sustained Burroughs’ objection to a two-level enhancement

for possession of a dangerous weapon (U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1)), granted Burroughs’

request for “safety valve” protection, granted a downward variance based on the

government’s acknowledgment of Burroughs’ substantial assistance as set forth in its

5K1.1 letter, and granted a downward departure based on the crack cocaine-powder

cocaine disparity.

II. DISCUSSION

Burroughs’ counsel petitions this Court to withdraw as attorney of record, arguing

that there are no non-frivolous issues that can be advanced on appeal. Counsel provided

a copy of his brief to Burroughs and we gave Burroughs thirty days to file a brief on his

behalf. Burroughs has not filed anything with this Court. 

We engage in a two-step inquiry when evaluating an Anders brief. First, we

determine whether counsel thoroughly examined the record for appealable issues and
3

adequately explained why any such issues are frivolous. Second, we conduct an

independent review of the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous

issues. See, e.g., United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). Counsel

reviewed the record and concluded that there were no appealable issues with respect to

the reasonableness of the sentence. Indeed, counsel noted that Burroughs prevailed on

each of his objections and requests with respect to sentencing, which resulted in a

significantly lower sentence that was below the advisory guidelines range. Likewise, our

independent review of the record indicates that there are no non-frivolous issues for

appeal. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Burroughs to a

below the guidelines sentence.

III. CONCLUSION

We will affirm the judgment of September 30, 2009, and grant the motion for

counsel to withdraw.
#### Camilo RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D12-1344.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 3, 2012.

Ricardo Corona, Coral Gables and Sahar Razzaghi-Awal, for appelant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Keri T. Joseph, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before CORTINAS, ROTHENBERG, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Hernandez v. State,*61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Robert N. Wildrick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 
| September 6, 2005 | /s/ ROBERT N. WILDRICK |
|------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                   | Robert N. Wildrick          |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer     |

 

----
#### Paula D. MOORE, ex-wife, Appellant, v. Rory A. MOORE, ex-husband, Appellee.

No. 1D10-3630.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 21, 2010.

J. Grant Timms, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed this appeal seeking review of a “Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage,” which had been modified by an “Order on Former Wife’s Amended Motion for Rehearing.” The trial court dissolved the parties’ marriage and resolved most of the issues in the case, including establishing a parenting plan for two of the parties’ minor children. As to the third child, however, the order directed a “reunification Parenting Plan that will be based on the report and recommendations of Dr. Stephen Bloomfield.” The order did not determine a time-sharing schedule for the third child and no subsequent order adopting a parenting plan for the third child has been filed in this case.

The issue of time sharing is integrally related to other issues concerning the parties minor children. *See Ward v. Bragg,*957 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). A judgment that reserves jurisdiction over an integrally related issue is not a final appealable order. *See id.; Hoffman v. O’Connor,*802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); *T.H. v. Department of Children and Families,*736 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA *1111999). Similar to the orders on appeal in *Ward, Hoffman,*and *T.H.,*the instant order is not final because it failed to dispose of an integrally related issue. Therefore, the appeal is premature. Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(Z).

The appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a timely notice of appeal upon rendition of a final order.

WEBSTER, HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
News United States Air Force
 DOD Safe Helpline gives sexual assault victims additional resourcePublished Oct. 18, 2015
                        
                        By Holly Logan-Arrington
                        
                        
                        Robins Air Force Base Public Affairs
                **ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFNS) --**
                The Defense Department has given sexual assault victims a resource that helps them take control of their recovery process.
Established in 2011, the DOD Safe Helpline is a crisis support service for members of the DOD community affected by sexual assault.
Safe Helpline provides live, one-on-one support and information to the worldwide DOD community. The service is confidential, anonymous, secure, and available 24/7 by click, call or text -- providing victims with the help they need anytime, anywhere.
Lisa Matney, the 78th Air Base Wing sexual assault response coordinator, said the helpline will provide an avenue for victims to get additional support and encouragement to come forward and make a restricted or unrestricted report of sexual assault.
The helpline provides live, confidential help through a secure instant-messaging format at SafeHelpline.org. The website also contains vital information about recovering from and reporting a sexual assault.
Pamela Davis, the sexual assault prevention and response victim advocate at Robins AFB, said the helpline gives sexual assault victims the additional support they may need.
"Some victims need additional avenues of support to obtain the courage to come forward and this resource can provide that additional support," she said.   
Safe Helpline also provides live, confidential help over the phone. The telephone helpline staff can even transfer callers to base sexual assault response coordinators, Veterans Benefits Administration coordinators, Military OneSource, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, and civilian sexual assault service providers. The phone number is the same in the U.S. and worldwide via the Defense Switched Network. 
Safe Helpline can also provide referrals via text.
By texting one's zip code or base name to 55-247 inside the U.S., or 202-470-5546 outside the U.S., Safe Helpline will text back contact information for the installation SARC and other resources available on and off base. Message and data rates may apply.
In addition to providing information for sexual assault victims, the helpline's website also offers information for their loved ones to better understand and be able to help in the recovery process.
"Individuals can use the web link to search for resources for their installation, so no matter where the person lives they can get help," Matney said.   *(Editor's note: To connect to the DOD Safe Helpline online, visit http://www.safehelpline.org/. People can also call the Safe Helpline at 877-995-5247 or text 55-247.)*sexual assault 



Robins AFB 



AFMC 



DOD Safe Helpline Related Links
        DOD Safe Helpline online
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1434 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1434

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, as the ``Rachel 
                     Carson Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RACHEL CARSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Rachel Carson Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rachel 
Carson Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1434

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, as the ``Rachel 
                     Carson Post Office Building''.
```
#### In re LOUISIANA JUDICIARY COMMISSION NO. 10-7427.

No. 2010-O-2458.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Johnson, Elfrida W.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Review of Judi*466ciary Commission Decision Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, No. 10-7427.

Denied. The decision of the Judiciary Commission is final. See Supreme Court Rule XXIII, Section 3 and Rule IV of the Rules of the Judiciary Commission.

WEIMER, J., recused.
**Exhibit** **32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

I, David M. Bronson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended December 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ David M. Bronson

David M. Bronson

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

February 7, 2007
#### Missouri Pacific R’y Co. v. Jeff. Earle.

(No. 3124.)

October 16, 1889.

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Einch & Thompson, counsel for appellant.

Robt. A. Rogers, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ *2. Evidence held insufficient to support a judgment against a railway company for killing stock.*This appeal is from a judgment for $350 damages in favor of appellee against appellant, for the value of a jennet alleged to have been killed by an engine and cars operated upon appellant’s railway. As presented in the record before us, we do not think the judgment is warranted by the evidence. All that is shown by the evidence is that the jennet was by some means injured, and after-wards died. It was found fifty or sixty yards from the railroad track, its legs skinned and bruised, but no bones broken. The character and extent of its injuries are not made to appear with particularity, nor is it shown that its death was caused by the injuries stated. It is not even shown how long it lived after having received the injuries. No one saw the injuries inflicted, nor was it shown circumstantially, with any certainty, that the injuries were received by contact with the engine or cars. The most that can be said of the evidence is that it justifies a bare suspicion that the animal was injured by the engine or cars and died from such injury.

Reversed and remanded.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


EXCHANGE
ACT RULE 15D-14(B) AND


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of US Dry Cleaning Corporation
(the ”Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, F. Kim Cox, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002, that:





i.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





ii.
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to US Dry Cleaning Corporation and will be
retained by US Dry Cleaning Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








By:
            /S/ F. KIM COXName:
            F.
      Kim CoxTitle:
            Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
            August
      14, 2008
No. 03-13-00286-CV

In the Third Court of Appeals

Austin, Texas

RICHARD PATRICK FAGERBERG,

Appellant

V.

STEVE MADDEN, LTD., SXSW, INC., AND W3 EVENT SPECIALISTS, INC.,

Appellees

APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-13-000933

261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

HON. SUZANNE COVINGTON PRESIDING

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant Richard Patrick Fagerberg files this motion requesting a two-day 

extension of time for filing the motion for rehearing submitted to the Court on 

August 21, 2015. Appellant respectfully shows:

1. On July 3, 2015, this Court issued an opinion and judgment affirming 

the trial court’s summary judgments favoring all three appellants. Appellant 

ACCEPTED

03-13-00286-CV

6630108

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/24/2015 5:03:21 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/24/2015 5:03:21 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

received a 30-day extension of time—to August 19, 2015—for filing any motion 

for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration.

2. The new due date was miscalendared in the undersigned counsel’s 

office. Instead of reflecting August 19, 2015 as the new due date, the calendar 

reflected a due date of August 21, 2015. Counsel thus erroneously believed the 

motion to be timely when filed.

3. Appellant asks the Court to extend his time for filing his motion for 

rehearing by two days so as to render the recent filing timely.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

Appellant respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion, thus making

his motion for rehearing against Appellee W3 Event Specialists, Inc. due on 

August 21, 2015. Appellant requests all other appropriate relief to which he is 

entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

SMITH LAW GROUP LLLP

/s/D. Todd Smith

D. Todd Smith

State Bar No. 00797451

todd@appealsplus.com

1250 Capital of Texas Highway South

Three Cielo Center, Suite 601

Austin, Texas 78746

(512) 439-3230

(512) 439-3232 (fax)

Counsel for Appellant
3

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

In compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5), I certify 

that I conferred with John Dailey, lead appellate counsel for Appellee W3 Event 

Specialists, who informed me that any extension of time to file a motion for 

rehearing would be opposed.

/s/D. Todd Smith

D. Todd Smith
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On August 24 2015, in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.5, I served this document by e-service, e-mail, and/or mail to:

Steven J. Knight

CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE, WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY

1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400

Houston, Texas 77002-4496

Counsel for Appellee Steve Madden, Ltd.

Peter D. Kennedy

GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, HEARON & MOODY, P.C.

401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200

Austin, Texas 78701

Counsel for Appellee SXSW, Inc.

John T. Dailey

ALLEN, STEIN & DURBIN, P.C.

6243 IH-1 0 West, 7th Floor

P. O. Box 101507

San Antonio, Texas 78201

Counsel for Appellee W3Event Specialists, Inc.

/s/D. Todd Smith

D. Todd Smith
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1312 

AN ACT 

To expedite adjudication of employer petitions for aliens of 

extraordinary artistic ability. 

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

•HR 1312 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Arts Require Timely 

3 Service (ARTS) Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYER PETI5 TIONS FOR ALIENS OF EXTRAORDINARY AR6 TISTIC ABILITY. 

7 Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ each place 

10 it appears and inserting ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Se11 curity’’; and 

12 (2) in paragraph (6)(D)— 

13 (A) by striking ‘‘(D) Any’’ and inserting 

14 ‘‘(D)(i) Any’’; 

15 (B) by striking ‘‘Once the’’ and inserting 

16 ‘‘Except as provided in clause (ii), once the’’; 

17 and 

18 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall adju20 dicate each petition for an alien with extraordinary ability 

21 in the arts (as described in section 101(a)(15)(O)(i)), an 

22 alien accompanying such an alien (as described in clauses 

23 (ii) and (iii) of section 101(a)(15)(O)), or an alien de24 scribed in section 101(a)(15)(P) (other than an alien de25 scribed in section 214(c)(4)(A) (relating to athletes)) not 

26 later than 30 days after— 
3 

•HR 1312 EH

1 ‘‘(I) the date on which the petitioner submits 

2 the petition with a written advisory opinion, letter of 

3 no objection, or request for a waiver; or 

4 ‘‘(II) the date on which the 15-day period de5 scribed in clause (i) has expired, if the petitioner has 

6 had an opportunity, as appropriate, to supply rebut7 tal evidence. 

8 ‘‘(iii) If a petition described in clause (ii) is not adju9 dicated before the end of the 30-day period described in 

10 clause (ii) and the petitioner is an arts organization de11 scribed in paragraph (3), (5), or (6) of section 501(c) of 

12 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax 

13 under section 501(a) of such Code for the taxable year 

14 preceding the calendar year in which the petition is sub15 mitted, or an individual or entity petitioning primarily on 

16 behalf of such an organization, the Secretary of Homeland 

17 Security shall provide the petitioner with the premium18 processing services referred to in section 286(u), without 

19 a fee.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 1, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1312 

AN ACT 

To expedite adjudication of employer petitions for 

aliens of extraordinary artistic ability.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-74784 on Form S-8 and No.s 333-68001 and 333-114917 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 14, 2006, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Noble International, Ltd. and managements
report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Noble International, Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2005.



|                     
|---------------------
|Deloitte & Touche LLP
|                     
|Detroit, Michigan    

March 14, 2006
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.5




RAPTOR PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.

2006 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN




 






2008 Plan Amendment




 






WHEREAS, Raptor Pharmaceuticals Corp. (the “Company”) maintains the Raptor
Pharmaceuticals Corp. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, as originally adopted on May 15, 2006 and amended
on February 28, 2007 (the “Plan”), and the Company’s Board of Directors (the
“Board”) is responsible for administering the Plan;



WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20 of the Plan, the Board (or a committee designated by the
Board) has the authority to amend the Plan at any time; and



WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the interests of Plan participants to amend
the Plan to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.



NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Plan is amended, effective as of January 1, 2009, in the
following manner:



1. Section 5.4 of the Plan is amended by replacing “eighty-five percent (85%)” with “one
hundred percent (100%)”.



2. All Plan references to section numbers and defined terms are amended to reflect the above
modifications.



3. Nothing herein shall be held to alter, vary or otherwise affect the terms, conditions, and
provisions of the Plan, except as noted above.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being a duly authorized officer of the Company, hereby
adopts and executes this 2008 Amendment to the Plan, this 22nd day of December, 2008.



Raptor Pharmaceuticals Corp.




By: /s/ Kim R. Tsuchimoto

Its: Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Theodore MATHIS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1688.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Mathis, Theodore; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 97-6378; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-1126.

Denied.