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

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1839

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Justin Michael Cinkan

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

 Submitted: March 9, 2020

Filed: May 27, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Justin Michael Cinkan on two counts of a three-count

indictment: conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance near a protected

location in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 860(a); and possession of

pseudoephedrine with reasonable cause to believe it would be used to manufacture
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). At sentencing, the district

court1 applied a two-level enhancement based on Cinkan’s role in the offense as an

organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor under § 3B1.1(c) of the United States

Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”). But, because Cinkan was a career offender

facing a maximum 80-year sentence, his offense level was automatically increased

from 31 to 34, resulting in an advisory sentencing range of 262 to 327 months. The

court granted Cinkan’s request for a downward variance and sentenced him to

concurrent 180-month terms of imprisonment. 

Cinkan appeals, asserting that his acquittal on a different count necessarily

means the jury found the evidence presented at trial was unreliable and not credible,

and the court should not have considered it when determining whether a role

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 applied. While we are dubious of Cinkan’s

argument, we need not resolve it because any legal error in applying the role

enhancement is harmless since the court ultimately calculated a Guidelines range

corresponding to Cinkan’s career-offender status.2

 See United States v. Wiggins, 747

F.3d 959, 963–64 (8th Cir. 2014) (concluding that any error in calculating drug

quantity was harmless when the court found the defendant a career offender under the

Guidelines). We affirm. 

______________________________

1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

2The career-offender offense level is tied to the applicable statutory maximum 

penalty. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

-2-
Summary of material terms of proposed employment agreement with Paul G. Anderson



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
  
 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS OF CEO AGREEMENT 
  
 Company and Paul G Anderson (“CEO”) have agreed in principle to the following terms of employment, subject to
negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement, to be effective as of September 1, 2005: 
  

	 	1.	Employer of record: FCStone, LLC 

  

	 	2.	Term: Three years until August 31, 2008, subject to termination by Company for cause and by CEO for good reason. Employment at will thereafter 

  

	 	3.	Position and Duties: President and Chief Executive Officer of FCStone, LLC and its parent company, FCStone Group, Inc. reporting to Board of Directors. CEO shall also serve as an
officer of such other subsidiaries of FCStone Group, Inc., and shall have such other duties, as the Board may direct. 

  

	 	4.	Covenant Not to Compete: In force until August 31, 2008, during and after employment. 

  

	 	5.	Compensation and Benefits: 

  

	 	A.	Base Salary. CEO shall be paid a base salary of $350,000.00 per annum. CEO’s base salary shall be reviewed annually by the Board of Director’s and may be increased
to fairly compensate CEO, but shall not be decreased during the three year term ending August 31, 2008. 

  

	 	B.	CEO Short-Term Incentive Bonus. CEO shall be eligible for an annual CEO Short-Term Incentive Bonus pursuant to Employer’s “Short-Term Incentive Plan,” to be
modified to reflect current equity structure after conversion from cooperative. 

  

	 	C.	Executive Staff Long-Term Mutual Commitment/Deferred Compensation Plan. CEO shall be eligible for payment(s) pursuant to the terms of the “FCStone CEO Deferred
Compensation Plan for Paul G. Anderson” that was previously adopted by the parties. 

  

	 	D.	Executive Staff Long-Term Incentive. CEO shall be eligible for payment(s) pursuant to Employer’s “Executive Staff Long-Term Incentive Plan” to be modified to
reflect current equity structure after conversion from cooperative. 

  

	 	E.	Regular Fringe Benefits. CEO shall be eligible for such benefits as are from time to time provided to the Company’s executive employees, including health insurance, 401K
plan, defined benefit pension plan, and disability insurance. 

  

	 	F	CEO Fringe Benefits: A company vehicle shall be provided to CEO. Personal use shall be permitted and accounted for under Employer’s regular policies. Employer shall pay
the costs of membership to Des Moines Golf and Country Club, the National Country Club, Kansas City, and the Union League Club of Chicago. A medical examination will be provided to CEO at Employer’s expense every other year.


  

	 	G.	Change of Control Agreement. CEO shall be entitled to severance payments pursuant to the terms of the Change of Control Plan adopted by Employer, with the term thereof
modified so as to extend to August 31, 2008, or two years from date of change of control, whichever period is longer. 

  

	 	H.	Nonqualified Plan. CEO shall be included as a participant in the “FCStone Nonqualified Supplemental Defined Benefit Plan.”
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




RELEASE OF DEVITO




     This Release (the “Release”) is being executed and delivered by ViewCast.com, Inc.
(“ViewCast”) in connection with the Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated as of
August 6, 2002 by and between ViewCast and John DeVito (“Employee”). Pursuant to Sections 5 and 7
of the Employment Agreement, Employee owes certain confidentiality, non-competition and
non-solicitation obligations to ViewCast. In connection with the closing of the transactions
contemplated by the Asset Purchase Agreement among Delta Computec Inc., ViewCast.com, Inc. and
Delta Computec LLC dated as of October 11, 2005 (the “Purchase Agreement”), upon the closing
ViewCast agrees to release DeVito from any and all confidentiality, non-competition and
non-solicitation obligations contained in the Employment Agreement.



     ViewCast, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged and intending to be legally bound, in order to close the transaction contemplated by
the Purchase Agreement, hereby agrees as follows:



     Upon the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Purchase Agreement, ViewCast hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably releases DeVito from any and all obligations relating to DeVito’s
confidentiality, non-competition and non-solicitation obligations contained in the Employment
Agreement



     This Release may not be changed except in a writing signed by the person(s) against whose
interest such change shall operate. This Release shall be governed by and construed under the laws
of the State of Texas without regard to principles of conflicts of law.



     All words used in this Release will be construed to be of such gender or number as the
circumstances require.



* * * * *




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this Release effective as of
this 18th day of November, 2005.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	VIEWCAST.COM, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Laurie L. Latham
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Laurie L. Latham 	 
	 	 	Title:  	CFO
FILEX:OPY

RE: Case No. 15-0105 DATE: 2/6/2015 COA #: 12-14-00217-CV TC#: 2013-0254-P-l STYLE: BARBARA GAIL HARRIS v. HAYDEN R. MAYFIELD, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HAYDENR. MAYFIELD, DECEASED, AND TRUSTEE UNDER THE WILL OF HAYDEN R. MAYFIELD 

### Apetition for reviewwas filedtoday in the above-styled case. Respondent may file either a response, or awaiver of 

### response. If you file a waiver, the Court will not grant the petitionwithout first requesting a response. (Tex. R. App.P. 53.3) There is no fee for a response or a waiver.

MS. CATHY S. LUSK CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354 TYLER, TX 75702
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

ALEX RYLE, 

 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

OUTEN, LIEUTENANT 

VERONICA TILGHMAN, 

SERGEANT MATTHEW 

DUTTON, SERGEANT 

BURLEY, MAJOR JASON 

SCHAFFER, and BUREAU 

CHIEF SHANE TROXLER, 

Defendants Below, 

Appellees.

§ 

§ No. 28, 2024 

§ 

§ Court Below–Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ C.A. No. N23C-02-192 (N) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

 

 Submitted: July 26, 2024 

 Decided: September 24, 2024 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 

ORDER 

After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it 

evident that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the 

reasons stated in the Superior Court’s January 5, 2024 Memorandum Opinion.1

1 Ryle v. Outen, 2024 WL 66022 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 5, 2024). 
2 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

INDIANA’S ECONOMY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Public Safety INDIANA BY THE NUMBERS 

Communications Research (PSCR) Division is the primary federal laboratory 

focused on conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation for NIST INVESTMENT 

public safety communications technologies. Their mission is to accelerate $9.3 Million 

communications innovation in support of public safety communities and the 

citizens they serve. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allocated $300 Million 

from the Public Safety Trust fund to NIST PSCR to perform critical public safety 

communications R&D during a 10-year period. PSCR implemented numerous 

research mechanisms to support the development and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network: grants, Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) contracts, prize challenge competitions, and internal research. 

These research mechanisms were housed within six research portfolios and crosscutting initiatives to maximize their impact: 

•	 User Interface/User Experience •	 Public Safety Analytics 

•	 Location-Based Services •	 Security 

•	 Mission Critical Voice •	 Resilient Systems 

While the ultimate impact of these research mechanisms is the increased safety 

of first responders and their communities through improved communications

technologies, PSCR was interested in better understanding how their R&D 

investments to date result in economic impacts that ripple outward to state 

economies. An independent analysis was conducted to demonstrate how PSCR’s 

deployment of the $300 Million from the Public Safety Trust Fund translated into 

broader impacts to the United States, including jobs, earnings, value added, and 

total economic output. PSCR’s R&D investments resulted in economic output 

in 33 of the 50 states. Results of the analysis are presented here. 

For more information, see NIST PSCR’s Economic Impact Study. 

$0.4 Million 

(2 awards) 

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr. 

12 Prize Challenge 

Participants 

Awards Totaling 

2 Grant Awards 

Totaling $8.9 Million 

Board of Trustees of 

Indiana University 

OUTPUT 

$20.1 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$11.5 Million 

EARNINGS 

$6.9 Million 

JOBS 

93 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

**All values are rounded; thus, the 

sum of the components may not 

sum exactly to the NIST Investment 

amount.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         451,506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 451,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   451,506
<SALES>                                      1,350,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,585,977
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,085,583
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             133,196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                367,198
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   367,198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4491 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4491

To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the 
  reduction in Medicare payment for certain items of durable medical 
                               equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2004

 Mr. Hobson (for himself and Mr. Ford) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the 
  reduction in Medicare payment for certain items of durable medical 
                               equipment.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN ITEMS OF 
              DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT.

    Paragraph (21) of section 1834(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395m(a)), as added by section 302(c)(2) of the Medicare 
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public 
Law 108-173), is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### Peter Kirkman *v.*J. W. Grissom, etc.

Execution — On Land Subject to Lien.

Under § 1, art. 13, ch. 36, R. S., if the legal title is in the execution defendant, a mere outstanding creditor’s lien on the land will not restrict the purchaser’s right to a lien for the price paid and ten per cent, interest thereon. v .

APPEAL PROM TODD CIRCUIT COURT.

October 1, 1873.

*141*Petrie & Reeves, for appellant.*

*Peland & Evans, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

We do not perceive from the averments of the petition that the defendants were estopped from claiming the benefit of their purchase at sale under execution, and this court has repeatedly decided • in construing section 1 of article 13, chapter 36, of the Revised Statutes, that when the legal title was in the defendant in execution, a mere outstanding creditor’s lien upon the land was not that kind of encumbrance upon it which would restrict the purchaser’s right to a lien for the price paid and ten per cent thereon. We must conclude, therefore, from the statements of the petition that the appellees, by their purchases from the sheriff and the commissioners, acquired all the title the appellant had to the property, legal and equitable, and the court properly sustained the demurrer.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6908

WILLIAM L. PATCH; LANDON MORRIS FUNDERBURK,

JR.; DAVID PARKER; MICHAEL AARON LITTLE; GARY

ELLIOTT HOKE; TIMOTHY JAY BLACKWELL; JEFFREY

D. PEACE,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

JANET RENO; J. M. VANYUR, Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-96-958-5-BO)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William L. Patch, Landon Morris Funderburk, Jr., David Parker,

Michael Aaron Little, Gary Elliott Hoke, Timothy Jay Blackwell,

Jeffrey D. Peace, Appellants Pro Se. Eileen Coffey Moore, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.
2

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 record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Patch

v. Reno, No. CA-96-958-5-BO (E.D.N.C. May 27, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Morgans Foods, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
annual report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
   Date: June 1, 2010
    /s/ Leonard R. Stein-SapirLeonard R. Stein-SapirChairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4495 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4495

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
             coastwise trade for the vessel W. N. RAGLAND.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2004

  Ms. Eshoo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
             coastwise trade for the vessel W. N. RAGLAND.

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

SECTION 1.

     That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
(46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. 
U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, the 
Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation 
with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for 
the vessel W. N. RAGLAND (Washington State registration number 
WN5506NE).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, Chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the
Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
August 4, 2008



By

/s/    SHOEI
UTSUDAName:

Shoei UtsudaTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)By

/s/    JUNICHI
MATSUMOTOName:

Junichi MatsumotoTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)