alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1535

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Nickolas Trent Lamm,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Southern

 ____________

 Submitted: August 5, 2022

Filed: August 15, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Nickolas Lamm appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he

pleaded guilty to a drug offense under a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. 

1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.
His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence.

We will enforce the appeal waiver because Lamm’s appeal waiver was made

knowingly and voluntarily, his challenge to the sentence falls within the scope of the

appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. 

See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Andis,

333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further, we have independently

reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no

non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly,

we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-
exv10w9



 






Exhibit 10.9




NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION




	 	 	 	 	 
	Cash Compensation	 	 	 	 
	Chairman Retainer-Annual
	 	$	30,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Member Retainer-Annual
	 	$	23,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Committee Chair Retainer-Audit
	 	$	7,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Committee Chair Retainer-Governance and ECDC
	 	$	2,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Board meeting fee
	 	$	2,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Committee meeting fee
	 	$	1,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Amount in Lieu of Stock Options Under Expired
1995 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors
	 	$	10,000	 






Restricted Stock Grant**



** Restricted stock grant valued at $18,000 made every three
years, including September 1, 2005, based on the last reported sale
price of the stock on the preceding trading day, and in accordance
with the 1993 Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Plan. A
person who becomes a non-employee director after the September 1 on
which an award was made will be awarded the number of shares
determined by dividing the amount equal to $18,000 minus the
product of $500 times the number of months since such September 1
by the last reported sale price of the stock on the trading day
next preceding the award date. A non-employee director may sell or
otherwise transfer one-third of the shares covered by an award on
each anniversary of the date of the award. If a non-employee
director ceases to be a director before the restrictions against
transfer have lapsed with respect to any shares, then except for
death, disability or retirement, the director forfeits such shares.
The restrictions lapse upon a change in control.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00286-CV

Margaret Landen SAKS and Philip M. Ross,

Appellants

v.

Marcus P. ROGERS, A. Chris Heinrichs, J. Barrett Shipp, and Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C.,

Appellees

From the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PC-3466B

Honorable Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellants Margaret Landen Saks and Philip 

M. Ross.

SIGNED July 26, 2017.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

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:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 72 Filed: 09/14/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1596
---

Exhibit 32.1





Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, of Rio Holdings, Inc., hereby certifies that, to my knowledge, on the date hereof:





1.
The annual report on Form 10-K of Rio Holdings, Inc. for the period ending December 31, 2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rio Holdings, Inc.






Date: April 30, 2010
/s/ Michael L. WilfleyMichael L. Wilfley

President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer








The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.
IV

House Calendar No. 203

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 458

[Report No. 105–567]

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2183) to amend the

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the financing of

campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 4, 1998

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2183)

to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for

Federal office, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill

2 (H.R. 2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act

3 of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for elections

4 for Federal office, and for other purposes, in the Commit5 tee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant

6 to House Resolution 442, all points of order against each
2

HRES 458 RH

1 amendment printed in the report of the Committee on

2 Rules accompanying this resolution are waived if the

3 amendment is offered by a Member designated in the re4 port. An amendment so offered shall be considered as

5 read.

House Calendar No. 203

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 458

[Report No. 105–567]

RESOLUTION

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R.

other purposes.paigns for elections for Federal office, and forAct of 1971 to reform the financing of cam2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign

JUNE 4, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                             NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kevin S. Royal, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:

    (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

    (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: August 11, 2003              By: /s/ Kevin S. Royal
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Kevin S. Royal
                                       Vice President and Chief Financial
                                       Officer
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 andForm S-3 of Xenonics Holdings, Inc. of our report dated November 16, 2006, with respect to ouraudits of the consolidated financial statements of Xenonics Holdings, Inc. and subsidiary as ofSeptember 30, 2006 and for each of the two years in the periodended September 30, 2006, in which the report included anexplanatory paragraph in connection with the Company's ability tocontinue as a going concern, included in the Annual Report in Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2006.We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3.
#### H. J. McAlister, etc., *v.*Wm. Carmen.

Limitation of Actions — Fee Bills.

The effect of Act February 12, 1869 (1 Sess. Acts. 1869-27), was not to revive and give effect to fee bills which, under existing law had ceased to be collectible, but the legislative intention was to extend the period within which fee bills not already barred might be enforced.

APPEAL FROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.

December 9, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

The answer in this, case seems to be sufficient at least as controverting the plaintiff’s claims and interposing the statute of limitations as a bar. But the principal question to be determined is, whether, as appears to have been assumed by the court, the act of February 12, 1869 (1 Session, Acts 1869-27), had the effect of *73reviving and giving effect to the claims of the appellee for services ■which had long ceased to be distrainable and were barred by limitation as ordinary debts. In our opinion it was not the object or purpose of that act to resuscitate and give some validity to fee bills which, under existing law, had ceased to be collectible in any form, but the legislative intention was to extend or prolong the period within which fee bills not already barred by limitation might be enforced.

*Dluin■, for appellants.*

*Phister, for appellee.*

Wherefore, the instructions of the court, being inconsistent with the foregoing statute, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial on principles consistent with this opinion.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.04
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our report dated
April 23, 1997 (except for Note 5 as to which the date is June 27, 1997 and Note
14 as to which the date is January 16, 1998), with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Station Casinos, Inc. as of March 31, 1997 and 1996 and
for each of the three years in the period ended March 31, 1997, included in
Crescent Real Estate Equities Company's Form 8-K/A filed February 13, 1998 and
to all references to our Firm included in this Registration Statement.
 
                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Las Vegas, Nevada
June 24, 1998
GUARANTEE,DATED AS OF APRIL 1,2004,HERITAGE PROPERTY INVESTMENT LTD PARTNERSHIP



 Exhibit 4.9 
  
 GUARANTEE 
  
 For value received, the undersigned hereby unconditionally guarantees, as principal obligor and not only as a surety, to the Holder of this Note the cash
payments in United States Dollars of any amounts due with respect to the Notes (and including Additional Interest payable thereon) in the amounts and at the times when due and interest on all overdue amounts, if lawful, and the payment or
performance of all other obligations of the Company or any other Guarantor under the Indenture or the Notes, to the Holder of this Note and the Trustee, all in accordance with and subject to the terms and limitations of this Note, Article 11 of the
Indenture and this Guarantee. This Guarantee will become effective in accordance with Article 11 of the Indenture and its terms shall be evidenced therein. The validity and enforceability of any Guarantee shall not be affected by the fact that it is
not affixed to any particular Note. 
  
 Capitalized terms used but
not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Indenture dated as of April 1, 2004, among Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation, the Guarantors and LaSalle National Bank, as trustee (the
“Trustee”), as amended or supplemented (the “Indenture”). 
  
 The obligations of the undersigned to the Holders of Notes and to the Trustee pursuant to this Guarantee and the Indenture are expressly set forth in Article 11 of the Indenture and reference is hereby made to the
Indenture for the precise terms of the Guarantee and all of the other provisions of the Indenture to which this Guarantee relates. 
  
 THIS GUARANTEE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO PRINCIPLES OF CONFLICTS
OF LAW. The Guarantor hereby agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Guarantee. 
  
 This Guarantee is subject to release upon the terms set forth in the Indenture. 
  
 The undersigned acknowledges that this Guarantee is subject to the TIA, if
and when the Indenture is so subject, and the undersigned agrees to discharge its duties under the TIA. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Guarantor has caused this Guarantee to be duly executed. 
  
 Dated: April 1, 2004 
  

			
	Heritage Property Investment Limited Partnership, as Guarantor
		
	 	 	 By: Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc., its
 General Partner

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David G. Gaw


	 	 	Name: David G. Gaw
	 	 	Title:   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


  

 D-1
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3890

To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology 

Competitiveness Act of 1988. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2004

Ms. HART (for herself, Mr. MURPHY, and Mr. ENGLISH) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science 

A BILL

To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation 

and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS. 

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

5 9 of the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and 

6 Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 

7 5108) is amended to read as follows: 
2

•HR 3890 IH 

1 ‘‘SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the Sec3 retary to carry out this Act $10,000,000 for each of the 

4 fiscal years 2005 through 2009.’’. 

5 (b) STEEL PROJECT PRIORITIES.—Section 4(c)(1) of 

6 the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Tech7 nology Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 

8 5103(c)(1)) is amended—

9 (1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ‘‘coatings 

10 for sheet steels’’ and inserting ‘‘sheet and bar 

11 steels’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub13 paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(K) The development of technologies 

15 which reduce greenhouse gas emissions.’’. 

16 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Steel and 

17 Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competi18 tiveness Act of 1988 is further amended—

19 (1) by striking section 7 (15 U.S.C. 5106); and 

20 (2) in section 8 (15 U.S.C. 5107), by inserting 

21 ‘‘, beginning with fiscal year 2005,’’ after ‘‘close of 

22 each fiscal year’’.

Æ
#### Commonwealth *v.*Rufus Rogers, etc.

Recognizances — Enforcement of Obligation.

Sections 20, 27, 52 and 80, Civ. Code Prac., were enacted for the purpose of enabling the court to enforce obligations on recognizance bonds, although they may not be executed in strict conformity with the statute.

APPEAL FROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT.

June 3, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

Section 26 of the Civil Code of P'ractice provides that the officer in taking the bail bond shall fix the day of the defendant’s appearance not exceeding five days from the arrest unless made in a different county.

*688
      *Rodman, for appellant.*

*Landrum, for appellees.*

Section 27 provides that a deviation from the provisions of this section shall not render the bond invalid. Section 52 provides that after bail is given the justice may for cause extend the time for defendant’s appearance not exceeding ten days. This last section still leaves Section 27 in force and only enlarges the power of the magistrate in extending the time after the bond has been executed for the appearance of the party charged. If this construction of the several sections referred toi should even admit of doubt Section 80 of the Code provides that if no day be fixed for the appearance of the party, or an impossible day the bond or recognizance shall be considered as binding the defendant to appear and surrender himself for trial within twenty days from the time of giving the bond. These sections of the code were enacted for the express purpose of enabling the courts to enforce such obligations, although they may not be executed in strict conformity to the statute. That the warrant embraced two offenses is no defense to the motion. The magistrate had the right to have the party arrested, and the warrant justified the officer in making the arrest. When brought before the court the accused might have demanded a separate trial or even the right to' execute separate bonds, but this he failed to' do and we see no reason for disturbing the judgment upon the forfeiture. The judgment of the court below is reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3816

To require employees at a call center who either initiate or receive telephone 

calls to disclose the physical location of such employees, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2004

Mr. STRICKLAND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To require employees at a call center who either initiate 

or receive telephone calls to disclose the physical location 

of such employees, 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 ‘‘Call Center Con5 sumer’s Right to Know Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CALL CENTER REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A United States corporation or its 

8 subsidiaries that utilizes a call center to initiate telephone 

9 calls to, or receive telephone calls from, individuals located 
2

•HR 3816 IH 

1 in the United States, shall require each employee in the 

2 call center to disclose the physical location of such em3 ployee at the beginning of each telephone call so initiated 

4 or received. 

5 (b) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—A corporation 

6 or subsidiary described in subsection (a) shall annually 

7 certify to the Federal Trade Commission whether or not 

8 the corporation or subsidiary, and the employees of the 

9 corporation or subsidiary at its call centers, have complied 

10 with that subsection. 

11 (c) NONCOMPLIANCE.—A corporation or subsidiary 

12 that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to such civil 

13 penalties as the Federal Trade Commission prescribes 

14 under section 3. 

15 (d) CALL CENTER DEFINED.—In this section, the 

16 term ‘‘call center’’ means a location that provides cus17 tomer-based service and sales assistance or technical as18 sistance and expertise to individuals located in the United 

19 States via telephone, the Internet, or other telecommuni20 cations and information technology. 

21 SEC. 3. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION RULES. 

22 Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment 

23 of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall prescribe 

24 rules to provide for effective monitoring and compliance 

25 with this Act. The Federal Trade Commission’s rule-
3

•HR 3816 IH 

1 making shall include appropriate civil penalties for non2 compliance with this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6367

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE MILTON DEMORY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-92, CA-03-52-7) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Milton Demory, Appellant Pro Se. John Leslie Brownlee, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George M. Demory, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, the lower court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Demory has not satisfied this standard. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 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.

DISMISSED