alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11165 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ-CAMPOS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-52-ALL Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alberto Rodriguez-Campos raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 4, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-11165

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7785
EMMANUEL NNOLI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; WILLIAM C. MI LLER, Honorable Judge; PAUL H. WEINSTEIN, Honorable Judge; JAMES TRIMM, Master; RAYMOND M. KIGHT, Sheriff; ANDREW L. S ONNER, Esquire; JOHN P. GALLEY, Warden, Montgomery County Detention Center; ALAN DAVID MEISELMAM, Esquire, and his law firm, Alan Meiselmam, Incorporated; ALAN J. NUTA, Esquire, and his law firm, Lan J. Nuta, Incorporated; RICHARD S. MCKERNON, Esquire, or his estate; NNENNAYA NNOLI, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA95-2750-PJM) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Emmanuel Nnoli, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Penny Whiteford, AssistantAttorney General, Baltimore Maryland; Linda B. Thall, Senior Assistant County Attorney, David Eugene Stevenson, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Robert William Hessel bacher, Jr., SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland; Alvin Ira Frederick, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Baltimore, Maryland; Charles Stephen Rand, MCKERNON & RAND, Rockville, Maryland; Patrick J. Hoover, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nnoli v. Maryland , No. CA-95-2750-PJM (D. Md. Oct. 10, 1996). We dispensewith 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.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert B. Goergen, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Blyth, Inc ., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Blyth, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

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

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: April 14, 2005

 

 
| /s/ Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert B. Goergen                    |   |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ Nos. 05-1472/1477

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Christopher L. Dion, also known as * Christopher L. Sturgeon, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 2, 2006 Filed: May 2, 2006

___________ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Christopher Dion previously pleaded guilty to third degree burglary, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1153(a). Later the same year he pleaded guilty to larceny, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 661 and 1153(a). He was sentenced to consecutive terms of 24 months and 12 months in prison, and to concurrent terms of 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution. The district court 1 later revoked supervised release for both offenses upon Dion’s admission that he had-2- violated the conditions of his supervised release by failing to answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and by failing to follow the probation officer’s instructions. The court imposed revocation sentences of 24 months and 12 months in prison, to be served consecutively. On appeal, Dion argues that the sentences are excessive and that the court abused its discretion.
The sentences are not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (after United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), revocation sentences are reviewed for unr easonableness). Both prison terms were within authorized limits, and the districtcourt considered appropriate factors in imposing the revocation sentences, includi ng not only Dion’s conduct resulting in the revocation but his abusive conduct toward his jailers while he was being detained pending these proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(B)-(C), 3583(e)(3); Tyson , 413 F.3d at 825-26 (sentence within st atutory range and grounded in concerns regarding defendant’s past be havior was not unreasonable).
We also conclude that the court di d not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); United States v. Controneo , 89 F.3d 510, 512-13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 519 U.S. 1018 (1996). Accordingly, we affirm, and we also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
#### In re E. Roland CHARLES.

No. 2011-B-0489.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

PER CURIAM.*

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent improperly settled a claim for his malpractice without first advising his client to seek independent counsel. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that E. Roland Charles, Louisiana Bar Roll number 4092, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to respondent’s successful completion of a one-year period of supervised probation governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the Petition for Consent Discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent, the ODC, and the probation monitor execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

*

 Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.
585 A.2d 372

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. NORMAN C. WILLIAMS.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 195 (Friday, October 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25436]



[[Page 62439]]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12341 Disaster <greek-i>ZZ-00006]


The Entire United States and U.S. Territories; Military Reservist 
Economic Injury Disaster Loan

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Military Reservist Economic Injury 
Disaster Loan. Program (MREIDL), dated 10/01/2010.

DATES: Effective Date: 10/01/2010.
    MREIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 1 year after the essential 
employees is discharged or released from active duty.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
Public Law 106-50, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business 
Development Act of 1999, and the Military Reservist and Veteran Small 
Business Reauthorization Act of 2008, this notice establishes the 
application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury 
Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL).
    Effective 10/01/2010, small businesses employing military 
reservists may apply for economic injury disaster loans if those 
employees are called--up to active duty during a period of military 
conflict or have received notice of an expected call-up, and those 
employees are essential to the success of the small business daily 
operations.
    The purpose of the MREIDL program is to provide funds to an 
eligible small business to meet its ordinary and necessary operating 
expenses that it could have met, but is unable to meet, because an 
essential employee was called--up or expects to be called--up to active 
duty in his or her role as a military reservist. These loans are 
intended only to provide the amount of working capital needed by a 
small business to pay its necessary obligations as they mature until 
operations return to normal after the essential employee is released 
from active duty. For information/applications contact 1-800-659-2955 
or visit http://www.sba.gov.
    Applications for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster 
Loan Program may be filed at the above address.
    The Interest Rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000.
    The number assigned is 12341 0.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-25436 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Form of Amendment to Severance Agreement (Senior Executives)



 Exhibit 10.2 
 MATRIX SERVICE COMPANY 
 AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to Severance Agreement (the “Amendment”) is by and between the undersigned Executive and Matrix Service Company (the “Company”) and
amends the Severance Agreement (the “Agreement”) previously entered into between them. The purpose of this Amendment is to confirm that the Agreement does not constitute a deferred compensation arrangement subject to Section 409A of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, because it falls within the “short-term deferral” exception of Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1. 
 The
Executive and the Company hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 
 1. Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph II.B. of the Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “1. Notwithstanding the above, the Executive shall forfeit the severance benefit
described in Paragraph II.A. only if the Executive shall fail to execute and return a non-interference, non-solicitation, waiver and release of claims and confidentiality agreement in a form satisfactory to the Company on or before the payment date.
Failure of the Executive to timely execute and return such agreement shall constitute an absolute forfeiture of such severance benefit.” 
 2.
Except to the extent amended by this Amendment, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 
 DATED this      day
of December, 2008, to be effective as of January 1, 2009. 
  

			
	“EXECUTIVE”
		
	By:	 	  

	
	“COMPANY”
	MATRIX SERVICE COMPANY
		
	By:	 	  

	Its:
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  In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David P. Edelman, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ DAVID P. EDELMAN  David P. Edelman
Chief Financial Officer
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. 
May 7, 2010
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CLIVENS and ANDREA GOLDMAN,

Appellants,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

as Trustee of the Indymac IMJA Mortgage Trust 2007-A1

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-A1,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-967

[September 24, 2015]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Eli Breger, Senior Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 2008CA016116XXXXMB.

Andrea and Clivens Goldman, Lake Worth, pro se.

Joshua B. Alper and Nicole R. Topper of Blank Rome LLP, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 

1150 (Fla. 1979).

WARNER, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
541 A.2d 405

#### Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Appellant *v.*GTRT, Inc., Appellee.

Argued March 22, 1988,

before Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three.

*Faith S. Kiehl,*Assistant Counsel, with her, *Kenneth B. Skelly,*Chief Counsel, for appellant.

*Robert V. Campedel, Zemprelli, Clipper and Campedel,*for appellee.

May 9, 1988:

Opinion by

Senior Judge Kalish,

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which modified a penalty imposed *63by the Board on GTRT, Inc. for selling alcoholic beverages to minors, which is prohibited by section 493(1) of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code (Code), Act of April 12, 1951, PL. 90, *as*amended, 47 PS. §4-493(1). We reverse.

The Board found that GTRT had sold alcoholic beverages to minors on April 5, 1985, and on other occasions during 1985. The Board imposed a fifteen day suspension.

GTRT appealed to the trial court which conducted a hearing de novo. The trial court found GTRT guilty of the offense charged, but modified the fifteen day suspension to a $750.00 fine.

The basis for the courts modification was that the evidence at the trial de novo showed, that the present director and sole shareholder was not involved with the business at the time of the cited offenses. Furthermore, since the time this new director/sole shareholder has assumed responsibility for the business, it has been operated in full compliance with the Code.

We have held that a trial court cannot modify a Boards order unless its findings are material and significantly different from those of the Board. *Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Dobrinoff,*80 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 453, 471 A.2d 941 (1984).

The relationship between penalty and policy is particularly within the Boards special competence and should not easily be disturbed on appeal. *Matter of Elemar, Inc.,*449 Pa. 8, 451 A.2d 209 (1982).

In this case, GTRT, which is currently the licensee, was also the licensee at the time of the violation. The feet that the court pierced the corporate veil to find that the present owner was not involved at the time of the violations is not a basis for modifying the penalty. This is not such a qualitative difference of a material fact that would warrant the modification. In fact, this is not even *64relevant to a determination of whether a violation occurred.

Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court, and reinstate the order of the Board.

Order

Now, May 9, 1988, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, S. A. 196> of 1987, dated June 5, 1987, is reversed, and the order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board is reinstated.
584 A.2d 218

#### LOCAL 827, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS AFL-CIO v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND CHARLES SERRAINO, ETC., ET AL.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 397

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT MAGER.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1


SUBSIDIARIES OF WEBMETHODS, INC.


|                                                    |  |                           
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|NAME                                                |  | ORGANIZED IN              
|                                                    |  |                           
|webMethods West, Inc.                               |  | Delaware                  
|                                                   
|Door Acquisition, Inc.                              |  | Delaware                  
|                                                   
|The Dante Group, Inc.                               |  | Delaware                  
|                                                   
|Intelliframe Corporation                            |  | Pennsylvania              
|                                                   
|The Mind Electric, Inc.                             |  | Texas                     
|                                                   
|webMethods Worldwide, Inc.                          |  | California                
|                                                   
|webMethods Australia Pty Ltd.                       |  | Australia                 
|                                                   
|webMethods BV                                       |  | the Netherlands           
|                                                   
|webMethods Canada Corporation                       |  | Canada                    
|                                                   
|webMethods Development Center India Private Limited |  | India                     
|                                                   
|webMethods France Sarl                              |  | France                    
|                                                   
|webMethods Germany GmbH                             |  | Germany                   
|                                                   
|webMethods Hong Kong Ltd.                           |  | Hong Kong                 
|                                                   
|webMethods K.K.                                     |  | Japan                     
|                                                   
|webMethods Korea Co., Ltd.                          |  | South Korea               
|                                                   
|webMethods Malaysia Sdn Bhd                         |  | Malaysia                  
|                                                   
|webMethods Singapore Pte Ltd.                       |  | Singapore                 
|                                                   
|webMethods Software Development (Beijing) Co. Ltd.  |  | Peoples Republic of China
|                                                   
|webMethods UK Ltd.                                  |  | United Kingdom