alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.09


OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC.
2002 BONUS AWARD PLAN


On March 15, 2002, a 2002 Bonus Award Plan under the 1999 Incentive Plan or any
successor Incentive Plan was approved by the Company's Board of Directors to be
administered by its Compensation Committee. Individuals were nominated and
approved for inclusion in the Plan and reviewed after final results were
completed. Recommendations for cash bonus awards were based on the
accomplishment of results (Individual, Profit Center and Total Company) in order
to determine the amount of award, if any, to be made. Awardees must be amongst
the nominated group for eligibility, and be employed by the Company at the time
of funding. Bonuses are earned when paid. Individuals, as designated, are
subject to a maximum bonus eligibility of 10%-125% of current base salary.

The 2002 Bonus Award Plan is based on achieving specific results by the
Individual, his Profit Center and the Total Company. In order to integrate each
of these performances in a fashion that benefits the Shareholders and Employees,
each item is interrelated. The amount of award recommendation was based on the
following methodology:

Individual Coefficient

The Individual Coefficient is determined by taking the individual's weighted
average evaluation of objectives achieved times the individual's salary maximum.
This is the beginning step in determining the final award. An individual's
performance must meet certain minimum criteria or he is eliminated from bonus
award consideration.

Profit Center Results Contribution

The Profit Center Contribution is determined by comparing the Profit Center Net
Income Objective with the results achieved and determining the Contribution to
the Individual Coefficient.

Should the Profit Center results be below a specified amount, all the
individuals in that Profit Center may be eliminated from the Award Program. The
Chief Executive Officer may review the performance of areas within the region on
a case-by-case basis and take appropriate action. Should the actual results be
equal to or greater than such specified amount, the individual becomes eligible
for an award.

Oceaneering International, Inc. Results Contribution

The Company Results Contribution is determined by comparing the Company's Net
Income Result with the Objective planned. The results achieved determine the
multiplier used. Thus, an individual may, subject to the determined maximum, be
recommended for an award equal to the Individual Coefficient times the Profit
Center Contribution times the Company Results Contribution times current base
salary.

The 2002 Bonus Award Plan is in effect for 2002. It is extremely important that
the Company continue improved results. All participants must be committed to a
reward system based onachieving results. The Company is entrepreneurially
oriented and must use its maximum creativity, effort and determination in
achieving individual results that collectively increases its Shareholders' Net
Wealth. The 2002 Bonus Award Plan is structured to foster that position.
423 A.2d 1312

#### Commonwealth v. Smeltzer, Appellant.

Argued April 11, 1979.

Lawrence G. Zurawsky, for appellant; James J. Conte, Assistant District Attorney, submitted a brief on behalf of Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Order affirmed.
Case 2:98-cr-00772-ROS Document 60 Filed 09/05/01 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:98-cr-00772-ROS Document 60 Filed 09/05/01 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:98-cr-00772-ROS Document 60 Filed 09/05/01 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:98-cr-00772-ROS Document 60 Filed 09/05/01 Page 4 of 4
IB

Union Calendar No. 8

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 649

[Report No. 105–11]

To amend sections of the Department of Energy Organization Act that

are obsolete or inconsistent with other statutes and to repeal a related

section of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 1997

Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado (for himself and Mr. HALL of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

MARCH 11, 1997

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To amend sections of the Department of Energy Organization Act that are obsolete or inconsistent with other

statutes and to repeal a related section of the Federal

Energy Administration Act of 1974.

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

•HR 649 RH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Department of Energy

3 Standardization Act of 1997’’.

4 SEC. 2. STANDARDIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

5 REQUIREMENTS WITH GOVERNMENT-WIDE

6 REQUIREMENTS.

7 (a) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REGULATIONS.—Sec8 tion 501 of the Department of Energy Organization Act

9 (42 U.S.C. 7191) is amended—

10 (1) by striking subsections (b) and (d),

11 (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub12 section (b) and by redesignating subsections (e), (f),

13 and (g) as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively,

14 and

15 (3) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by

16 striking ‘‘subsections (b), (c), and (d)’’ and inserting

17 ‘‘subsection (b)’’.

18 (b) SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING ADVISORY

19 COMMITTEES.—

20 (1) SECTION 624.—Section 624 of the Depart21 ment of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7234)

22 is amended by—

23 (A) striking ‘‘(a)’’; and

24 (B) striking subsection (b).
3

•HR 649 RH

1 (2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMEND2 MENT.—Section 17 of the Federal Energy Adminis3 tration Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 776) is repealed.
Union Calendar No. 8

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 649

[Report No. 105–11]

A BILL

To amend sections of the Department of Energy

of 1974.section of the Federal Energy Administration Actent with other statutes and to repeal a relatedOrganization Act that are obsolete or inconsistMARCH 11, 1997

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES GRIFFIN.

May 2, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Notice of Settlement Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PH I L L I P S DA Y E S

 LAW FIRM

 A Professional Corporation

3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com

TREY DAYES, No. 020805

SEAN C. DAVIS, No. 030754

(602) 288-1610 ext. 432

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian Crowder; 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

Bravo Cleaning Services, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company; Rafael Bravo

and Jane Doe Bravo, husband and wife

 Defendants

Case No.: 2:15-cv-02277-DMF

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff hereby gives notice that the parties have reached a settlement and 

anticipate filing the appropriate documentation with the Court within 30 days. 

Dated: September 1, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES LAW FIRM PC

By: /s/ Sean C. Davis

Trey Dayes

Sean C. Davis

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-02277-DMF Document 19 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 2
Notice of Settlement Page 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 1, 2016, I electronically transmitted the 

attached document to the clerk’s office using the CM/ECF system for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to each of the following registrants:

HADDOCK LAQ GROUP, L.L.C.

Najia M. Haddock No. 010953

4405 E. Chandler Blvd.

#110-155

Phoenix, Arizona 85048

Email: Admin@haddocklawgroup.com

Najia M. Haddock No. 010953

Attorney for Defendants

By: /s/Sean C. Davis

Sean C. Davis

Case 2:15-cv-02277-DMF Document 19 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal (Doc. 19). Pursuant to the 

parties’ stipulation, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. That the Stipulation for Dismissal (Doc. 19) is granted; 

2. That this action is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety; 

3. That each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees; and 

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 19th day of January, 2016.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Darby Green, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Trans Union, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-02359-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-02359-SPL Document 20 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Debra Jean Milke,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-00060-PHX-RCB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

On May 15, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate,

reversing this Court’s denial of habeas relief and remanding with instructions to grant a

conditional writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 199.) The court of appeals further directed this

Court to order the State to provide Petitioner’s counsel with police personnel records

covering all years of service for Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate, Jr., including

records pertaining to any disciplinary or Internal Affairs investigations and records pertaining

to performance evaluations, prior to granting the conditional writ. Pursuant to the mandate

of the court of appeals,

IT IS ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, Respondents shall

(1) provide to Petitioner’s counsel all police personnel records covering all years of service

for Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate, Jr., including but not limited to records

pertaining to any disciplinary or Internal Affairs investigations and records pertaining to

performance evaluations; (2) file under seal with a copy to Petitioner’s counsel any police

Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 200 Filed 05/29/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

personnel records for Detective Saldate that Respondents believe are irrelevant under Brady

or Giglio; and (3) file a statement under oath from a relevant police official certifying that

all of Detective Saldate’s police personnel records have been disclosed and none has been

omitted, lost, or destroyed.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any personnel records filed under seal and

contested by Respondents as irrelevant under Brady or Giglio shall be maintained by both

parties in a confidential manner. Such records may be used only by representatives for

Petitioner and Respondents in litigating their relevancy and shall not be disclosed to any

other persons, agencies, or entities without an order from this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondents contest the relevancy of any of

Detective Saldate’s personnel records, Petitioner shall file a brief addressing the relevancy

of such records within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the sealed records from Respondents.

Respondents may file a reply within seven (7) days of the filing of Petitioner’s brief.

DATED this 29th day of May, 2013.

Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 200 Filed 05/29/13 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Test Piloting Legends Reunite","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fqe0bVLOCY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/lrc-2023-h1-p-nilsvictorclayton-00792\/\">NASA Test Piloting Legends Reunite<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/lrc-2023-h1-p-nilsvictorclayton-00792\/embed\/#?secret=fqe0bVLOCY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Test Piloting Legends Reunite” — NASA\" data-secret=\"fqe0bVLOCY\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/lrc-2023-h1-p-nilsvictorclayton-00792.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":414}
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 25, 2015

NO. 03

- 14

- 00236

- CR

Kevin Todd Hardin, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUST ICES GOODWIN AND FIE LD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction r en d ered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**MICHAEL J. PISKANIN, JR.,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF**

**PROBATION AND PAROLE AND SECRETARY AND BOARD,** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 49 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 24th day of April, 2015, the “Motion to Allow Notice of Appeal** 

Nunc Pro Tunc, **” the Application for Emergency Relief, and the Motio n for Imposition of** 

**Sanctions are** DENIED

**.**
#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William DEWALT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-30107.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.

Decided Feb. 24, 2005.

*805Joshua A. Van De Wetering, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David S. Cohen, Edward Siskel, Wilmer Cutler Pickering, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, and GRABER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant William DeWalt stands convicted, after a jury trial, of distribution of a controlled substance resulting in death, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.

1. On de novo review, *United States v. Naghani,*361 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 341, 160 L.Ed.2d 247 (2004), we hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction under § 841(a)(1). Defendant sold 20 “Methadose” brand methadone pills to the decedent. One Methadose brand pill was found in the decedent’s possession at the time of his death, which occurred not long after this sale. The decedent died of a methadone overdose. Although the defense argued that the decedent traded Methadose brand pills with Wiren for “Roxane” brand pills, Wiren denied the trade. A rational finder of fact could find causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. *United States*
      *806
      *v. Holmes,*229 F.3d 782, 789 (9th Cir. 2000). We find no abuse of discretion. The district court observed that the witness “did not demonstrate mental clarity or even moderate communication skills” and that her testimony was so subject to impeachment in various respects that it would not have affected the outcome of the trial.

3. On de novo review of the sentencing issue, *United States v. Tighe,*266 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.2001), we find no error. The holding of *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains good law even after *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Blakely v. Washington,*— U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). *United States v. Quintana-Quintana,*383 F.3d 1052, 1052-53 (9th Cir.2004), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1100, 160 L.Ed.2d 1085, 2005 WL 127012 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2005) (No. 04-7813). In addition, *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -,---, 125 S.Ct. 738, 755-56, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), which applies *Blakely*to the federal Sentencing Guidelines, does not affect the holding in *Almendarez-Torres.*

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Daimeon Mosley, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bootleggers Scottsdale LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02306-PHX-DKD

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment by Default Against Defendant on March 9, 

2016. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on March 11, 2016 

recommending that the Presiding District Judge of the Phoenix Division enter the 

Proposed Default Judgment. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge 

advised the parties that they had fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the 

Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the 

Court. The time to file such objections has long since expired and no objections to the 

Report and Recommendation have been filed. 

 The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge. 

Case 2:15-cv-02306-DKD Document 11 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge as the Order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will enter the proposed Default 

Judgment by separate order. 

 Dated this 5th day of April, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02306-DKD Document 11 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 589

To amend the Fair Housing Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 5, 1997

Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HORN, Mr. WHITE, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. BAKER, Mr. HAYWORTH,

Mr. HUNTER, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. KING, and Mr. DREIER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Fair Housing Act, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Housing Reform

5 and Freedom of Speech Act of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING ACT.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section

8 807(b)(1) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(1))

9 is amended by inserting before the period the following:
2

•HR 589 IH

1 ‘‘, including any restriction relating to the maximum num2 ber of unrelated persons permitted to occupy a dwelling,

3 or governing the proximity of dwellings to each other, in

4 connection with the occupancy of a dwelling by a convicted

5 felon, sex offender, or recovering drug addict, if the pur6 pose of the restriction is to restrict land use to single fam7 ily dwellings’’.

8 (b) PROTECTION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.—Title I

9 of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) is

10 amended by adding at the end the following new section:

11 ‘‘SEC. 821. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.

12 ‘‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to

13 any otherwise lawful activity engaged in by one or more

14 persons, including the filing or maintaining of a legal ac15 tion, that is engaged in solely for the purpose of—

16 ‘‘(1) achieving or preventing action by a govern17 mental entity or official; or

18 ‘‘(2) receiving an interpretation of any provision

19 of this Act in a court of competent jurisdiction.’’.

Æ
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Guadalupe Henry Zambrano v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 0 0 352

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 461905

Trial court: 23 2nd District Court of Har ris County

On January 9, 2017, a ppellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief concluding

that the above

- referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel did not, however, filed a motion t o withdraw from representation. On January 26, 2017, we ordered appointed counsel, J. Sidney Crowley, to file with the Clerk of this Court a motion to withdraw no later than February
7, 2017. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 6.5, 9 . To date, counsel has not filed a mot ion to withdraw.

If appointed counsel believes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must request permission to withdraw. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. An Anders brief must accompany a motion to withdraw ; neither the brief nor the motion may be filed on

its own. See id. ; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

– 08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Accordingly, we order appellant’s appointed counsel, J. Sidney Crowley , to file with the Clerk of this Court within 10 days of the date of this order a motion to withdraw that complies with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5

, 9 , and 10.1

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 6.5, 9 , 10.1 ; Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 410, 412.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually

Date: April 13, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sheva Powell,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03694-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9200 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1