alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10685

JULIE DEFFENBAUGH WILLIAMS

Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC, ET AL

Defendants

WAL-MART STORES, INC

Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee

- - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

- - - - -

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion September 24, 1998, 5 Cir., 1998,

_____ F.3d

____ )

(February 26, 1999)

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ,

WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a

poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the

judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a

rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court

en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fix ed. The

Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of

supplemental briefs.

________________________Chief Judge King is recused and did not participate in this

decision.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ORANGE BEACH MARINA, INC., : 

et al., : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : 

VS. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-00217-B 

 : 

TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS, INC., : 

et al., : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

 

ORDER

 This action is before the Court on Defendants BP 

Exploration & Production, Inc., BP Products North America, Inc. 

and BP America, Inc.’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending 

Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Doc. 

6). Defendant Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. has filed a 

Joinder in the motion (Doc. 21), and Plaintiffs have filed a 

response in opposition (Doc. 29). 

 Upon consideration, the Motion to Stay is DENIED with leave 

to re-file after responsive pleadings have been filed. See

Burke, et al. v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., No. 

10-cv-00195-WS-M (S.D. Ala. May 25, 2010) (order denying motion 

for stay (Doc. 41)). 

 

Case 1:10-cv-00217-B Document 43 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 2
 DONE this 8th day of June, 2010.

 /s/Sonja F. Bivins ______ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00217-B Document 43 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41004

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN MANUEL GUEVARA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-49-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Manuel Guevara appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

possession of more than 50 kilograms of marijuana with intent to

distribute. Guevara argues that his conviction should be

reversed because 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional under

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). This issue is

foreclosed, as Guevara concedes, by United States v. Slaughter,

238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). Guevara’s conviction is

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4827 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4827

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 An Act

 
  To amend the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black 
  Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 to rename the Colorado Canyons 
National Conservation Area as the McInnis Canyons National Conservation 
                                 Area.

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

SECTION 1. MCINNIS CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.

    (a) Purpose.--The Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and 
Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460mmm et seq.) 
is amended in section 2(b) by striking ``Colorado Canyons'' and 
inserting ``McInnis Canyons''.
    (b) Definitions.--Section 3 of such Act is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Colorado'' and 
        inserting ``McInnis''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Colorado'' and 
        inserting ``McInnis''.
    (c) Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area.--Section 4 of such 
Act is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``colorado'' and inserting 
        ``mcinnis''; and
            (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Colorado Canyons'' and 
        inserting ``McInnis Canyons''.
    (d) Advisory Council.--Section 8(a) of such Act is amended by 
striking ``Colorado Canyons'' and inserting ``McInnis Canyons''.
    (e) Short Title.--Section 1 of such Act is amended by striking 
``Colorado'' and inserting ``McInnis''.
    (f) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the ``Colorado Canyons 
National Conservation Area'' shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area''.
    (g) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made by this 
section take effect on January 1, 2005.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 10.4

SECOND AMENDMENT 

TO 

AMENDED AND RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This Second Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the “Executive Agreement”) between Goodman Networks Incorporated (the “Company”) and Jonathan E. Goodman (the “Executive”) is effective as of January 1, 2015 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Executive Agreement on February 1, 2013 and amended such Executive Agreement in April 2014;

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend and/or supplement certain provisions of the Executive Agreement, as provided herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the Company and Executive agree as follows:

Section 4.2(b) entitled Retention Compensation is deleted in its entirety and any reference to “Retention Bonus” throughout the Executive Agreement is deleted.  Section 4.2, subsection (b) of the Executive Agreement provided as follows: 

“Retention Compensation: The Company shall pay Employee an annual retention bonus, payable on December 31st of each calendar year during the Term, equal to 75% of the annualized Base Salary grossed up for federal, state, and local income and employment taxes (assuming the highest marginal tax rate), so that Employee shall receive an amount equal to 75% of the annualized Base Salary as if there were no federal, state, and local income tax and employment tax liability for such bonus (collectively, the “Retention Bonus”).

Except as specifically set forth herein, no other provision of the Executive Agreement is amended, modified, or supplemented hereby.  

[Signature Page to Follow]

 







IN WITNRESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.

 


	
THE EXECUTIVE
	
 
	
Goodman Networks Incorporated

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
/s/ Jonathan E. Goodman
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Monty West

	
Jonathan E. Goodman
	
 
	
Title:
	
24 April 2015




 

2
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, Gary L. Dreher, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMDL, Inc.
     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of thesmall business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;
     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal controlover financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f) for the small business issuer and have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis annual report is being prepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual reportbased on such evaluation; and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004
/S/  GARY L. DREHERGary L. DreherChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN
THE  COMPANY'S  FORM 10K FOR THE YEAR 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                          MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                     43,450
<SECURITIES>                                               67,586
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                8,242
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          326,822
<PP&E>                                                      4,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            433,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     394,094
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                   26,012
<OTHER-SE>                                                 13,532 <F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              433,638
<SALES>                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           11,129
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            5,810
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          2,916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             2,103
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  809
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        12,914
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               279
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                1,018
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 .30 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 .29 <F3>
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES UNREALIZED GAIN ON SECURITIES AFS OF 49
<F1>AFTER EXTRAORDINARY ITEM OF 276, BEFORE EXTRAORDINARY 
ITEM PRIMARY .38.
<F1> AFTER EXTRAORDINARY ITEM OF 276, BEFORE EXTRAORDINARY 
ITEM DILUTED .37.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   <ARTICLE>      5
   <MULTIPLIER>   1,000
   <CURRENCY>     U.S.
          
   <S>                          <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>             APR-30-1997
   <PERIOD-START>                MAY-01-1996
   <PERIOD-END>                  APR-30-1997
   <EXCHANGE-RATE>                   1.00000
   <CASH>                             21,273
   <SECURITIES>                       69,700
   <RECEIVABLES>                     160,288
   <ALLOWANCES>                       15,624
   <INVENTORY>                       107,502
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                  367,946
   <PP&E>                            202,830
   <DEPRECIATION>                    114,330
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                    497,591
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             107,827
   <BONDS>                                 0
   <COMMON>                           11,769
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
   <PREFERRED>                             0
   <OTHER-SE>                        270,826  
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      497,591
   <SALES>                           766,761
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                  766,761
   <CGS>                             403,317
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                     710,510
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                   (1,163) 
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   (801)
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                    58,215
   <INCOME-TAX>                       23,540
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                34,675
   <DISCONTINUED>                          0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
   <CHANGES>                               0
   <NET-INCOME>                       34,675
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                        4.73
   <EPS-DILUTED>                        4.73
           
   
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHARON D. REED, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0413-WS-C

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendants. :

 ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion

of this Court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby dismissed without

prejudice.

DONE this 8th day of November, 2005.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00413-WS-C Document 6 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 10.10






 


EXHIBIT
10.10


 


 


 


May
31, 2013


 


VIA
FEDERAL EXPRESS


 


NeoMedia
Technologies, Inc.


100
West Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 9


Boulder,
CO 80302 


Att:
Colonial (ret) Barry Baer, CFO


 


	 	Re:	Certain
    Secured Convertible Debenture issued to YA Global Investments, L.P. (“Convertible Debenture”) and related
    transaction documents. 


 


Dear
Mr. Baer:


 


Please
be advised that YA Global Investments, L.P. (“YA Global”) sold, assigned, and transferred to Westport Energy
LLC (“Westport”) all right, title, and interest of YA Global in the entirety of the Secured Convertible
Debenture identified in Exhibit A, issued by NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. to YA Global, as amended (the “Debenture”)
as set forth on Exhibit A, (as assigned to Westport, the “Assigned Debenture”) effective as of the close
of business on June 1, 2013.


 


The
Debenture is currently registered in the name of and issued as payable to YA Global. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Debenture, YA Global hereby instructs NeoMedia to (a) record the transfer of the Debenture to Westport as set forth in Exhibit
A, and (b) reissue the Assigned Debenture by executing and delivering to Westport, the Assigned Amended, Restated and Consolidated
Debenture in the amounts set forth on Exhibit A, as of June 1, 2013. For your convenience, a draft of the Assigned Debenture
is enclosed. Also enclosed please find a copy of the Non-Recourse Assignment Agreement for your reference.


 


For
your information, Westport may be reached at the following address:


 


Westport
Energy LLC


100
Overlook Center, 2nd FL


Princeton,
NJ 08540


Telephone:
1.609.498.7029


Facsimile:
1.609.498.7029


Attention:
Stephen Schoepfer


 


Please
contact me at (201) 536-5164 should you have any questions or require additional information.


  


	 	Very
truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Steven S. Goldstein
	 	Steven S. Goldstein
	 	Chief Compliance
    Officer of Yorkville Advisors, LLC,
	 	the investment
    manager to YA Global Investments, L.P.


 





1012
Springfield Avenue, Mountainside, NJ 07302 | p 201.985.8300 ● f 201.369.7778 | www.yorkvilleadvisors.com


Mountainside,
NJ | London







 




    	 



    	 



    



 


Exhibit
A


 


LIST
OF ASSIGNED DEBENTURES


 


	A.	Original
    Debenture: Secured Convertible Debenture dated December 8, 2011 in the original face amount of $325,000 (NEOM-11-11)
    issued by NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. to YA Global Investments, L.P., as amended. The Maturity date of such Debenture is August
    1, 2014. 


 


	Principal Balance	 	 	Principal Balance

 Assigned	 	 	Accrued Interest	 	 	Accrued Interest

 Assigned	 	 	Total

 Outstanding	 	 	Total Security Assigned	 
	$	150,000	 	 	$	150,000	 	 	$	14,830.82	 	 	$	14,830.82	 	 	$	164,830.82	 	 	$	164,830.82
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Fabian Roy LAO, also known as Archie Bennett, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-1636.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 11, 2001.

*14David A. Lewis, The Legal Aid Society, Federal Defender Division Appeals Bureau, New York, NY, for appellant.

Timothy J. Treanor, Assistant United States Attorney; Gary Stein, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel; Mary Jo White, United States Attorney, on the brief, United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for appellee.

Present NEWMAN, CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and UNDERHILL, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Fabian Roy Lao appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the District Court after Lao pled guilty to one count of illegally reentering into the United States as a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The District Court sentenced Lao to 57 months’ imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $100. On appeal, Lao challenges his conviction on two grounds: (1) that venue was improper in the District Court because he was apprehended outside of the Southern District of New York; and (2) that his guilty plea allocution failed to comply with Rule 11(c)(1) and (f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We find no merit in either argument.

First, a defendant who knowingly and voluntarily enters a guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defenses, including objections to venue. *See United States v. Calderon,*243 F.3d 587, 590 (2001). Accordingly, Lao cannot argue on appeal that venue did not lie in the District Court, because he waived this argument below.

Second, a guilty plea allocution complies with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c) and (f) as long as a defendant understands the elements of the offense to which he is pleading and there is a factual basis for the plea. *See*Fed. *15R.Crim.P. 11(c), (f); *Calderon,*243 F.3d at 589-90. Rule 11 does not require a district court to inform a defendant of all possible defenses to his conviction, such as a potential venue defense. *See Calderon,*243 F.3d at 589-90. Here, Lao was fully-informed of the elements of his alleged offense. Moreover, there was an adequate factual basis for Lao’s plea, because, among other things, he admitted in the course of his allocution that he had been found in the United States after he had been deported. Accordingly, Lao’s plea was not taken in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c) and (f).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification of    Chief Executive Officer Sarbanes-Oxley Act    Section 906**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, the undersigned    officer of National City Corporation (the “Company”),    hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the    Company’s Annual Report on    Form 10-K    for the year ended December 31, 2007 (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: February 13, 2008      By: /s/ Peter E. Raskind        Peter E. Raskind