alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tecarlos Derille SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-5219.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 29, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 26, 2006.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Eric David Goulian, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Tecarlos Derille Smith appeals the district court’s order sentencing him to a total of 196 months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis of a waiver of appellate rights contained in its plea agreement with Smith. Smith’s brief has been filed pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and counsel for Smith asserts that if the waiver is found to be unenforceable, the sentence is unreasonable. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Smith has not done so.

Addressing the Government’s motion first, this court’s interpretation of Smith’s plea agreement is guided by contract law. *United States v. McQueen,*108 F.3d 64, 66 *250(4th Cir.1997). The waiver provision in Smith’s plea agreement precludes a challenge to Smith’s sentence, but does not bar a challenge to his conviction on direct appeal. We conclude the waiver is enforceable to the extent Smith seeks to challenge his sentence. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion as it applies to Smith’s appeal of his sentence and deny the motion as it applies to our review of Smith’s conviction under *Anders.*

Turning to Smith’s conviction, we have reviewed the record pursuant to *Anders*and find no error. The district court fully complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in conducting Smith’s plea hearing, and we discern no basis for concluding that Smith’s guilty plea was involuntary or unknowing. Finding no meritorious issues, we affirm Smith’s conviction.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.*
Approving Official Batch Memo

Date: Unit Batch Number*:

(Example: ID-BOD-001)

To: Casual Payment Center MS 270

3833 S Development Ave

Boise, ID 83705-5354

(Please overnight mail / Call Casual Payment Center for Saturday delivery)

From:

Name Phone Number

Unit Address

 Check here if you would like a confirmation of processed batch sent to you.

Government Email address for batch confirmation

Subject: Payment of Casual Hire, Incident Time Reports (OF-288)

Attached are the forms necessary for processing casual hire payrolls as follows:

Number of OF-288s in Batch:

Number of Casual Names submitted (attach list):

(For Crews attach Crew Manifest)

I have verified, attached, or have on file the following:

1. OF-288s have been audited and are attached, including signatures of the casual (if available) and an 

original Time Officer signature on line 21 of the OF-288.

2. I-9s are completed and on file at the hiring unit, (the CPC will return any I-9s to the hiring unit).

3. W-4s and State withholding forms are complete and attached, or previously submitted.

4. Verified Cost Accounting Data.

5. Other (explain): 

........................................................................................................................................

If you have any questions, please contact at .

As approving official, I certify the attached travel reimbursement and OF-288s are accurate, appropriate, and

legal for payment and meet the provisions of the Department of the Interior Pay Plan for Emergency Workers. 

Print Approving Official Name:

APPROVING OFFICIAL SIGNATURE:

Job Title:

*A unique batch number should be assigned to each payroll submitted. Please reference the applicable batch number when contacting 

the Casual Payment Center with questions.

Incidental Expenses: Pay $5 a day for all casuals listed. Starting Date Ending Date . 

*** Provide only if no other travel costs are incurred ***
Batch Number: *EFT OR EFT

Waiver

Name of Casual

OF-288W-4EFT*EFT Waiver*FEHBOther

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
96-2178.

#### In re Resignation of DePalma.

IT IS ORDERED by this court, *swa sponte,*effective May 7, 1997, that Philip N. DePalma, Attorney Registration No. 0019595, last known address in Scottsdale, Arizona, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of October 18, 1996, to wit: failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 18,1996.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 50919 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

− Appellee ,

v ersus ARTURO ROGEILO DOMINGUEZ, JR. , Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 7:18

- CR

- 127

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Arturo Dominguez, Jr., has moved

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 10, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50919 Document: 00515111295 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2019No. 18

- 50919

2 to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Dominguez has filed

a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair

e valuation of Dominguez ’s claims of ine ffective assistance of counsel , which we therefore decline to consider with out prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief , relevant portions of the record , and Dominguez ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

p re sents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 18-50919 Document: 00515111295 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2019
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bryan Bassett, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 517]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony E Aloi, J.), rendered September 9, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). “Although a different result would not have been unreasonable, the jury was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and, on this record, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” *(People v Orta,*12 AD3d 1147, 1147 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 801 [2005]).

*1322We reject defendant’s further contention that the showup identification procedure resulting in identifications made by two witnesses was unduly suggestive and that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the identifications. Prompt showup identification procedures that are conducted in geographic and temporal proximity to the crime “are not ‘presumptively infirm,’ and in fact have generally been allowed” *(People v Ortiz,*90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997], quoting *People v Duuvon, 77*NY2d 541, 543 [1991]). Here, the showup identification procedure was reasonable because it was conducted within 200 yards of the scene of the crime, within 20 minutes of the commission of the crime, and in the course of a continuous, ongoing investigation *(see People v Brisco,*99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003]; *People v Lewis,*97 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 1103 [2012]). Moreover, the two witnesses were placed in different police vehicles and remained apart throughout the showup identification procedure. Thus, “ ‘it cannot be said that the [witnesses] were in such proximity while viewing [defendant] that there was an increased likelihood that if one of them made an identification the other[ ] would concur’ ” *(People v Woodard,*83 AD3d 1440, 1441 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 803 [2011]).

Defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial based on the prosecutor’s improper questions on cross-examination of defendant and improper comments during summation is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant failed to object to those instances of alleged misconduct *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; *see also People v Washington,*89 AD3d 1516, 1516-1517 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 963 [2012]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
#### National Life Ins. Co. *v.*Harvey.

*(Circuit Court, D. Iowa.*

May 18, 1881.)

1. Insurance—Loan—Usury.

Where a contract for the loan of money and an agreement for insurance upon the life of the borrower are blended together in one and the same transaction, and the proof shows that the policy of insurance was taken and the premium paid in advance in consideration of the loan, the transaction is usurious if the sum so paid as premium is greater than the interest allowed by law.

McCrary, C. J.

Where a contract for the loan of money and an agreement for insurance upon the life of the borrower are blended together in one and the same transaction, and the proof shows that the policy of insurance was taken and a premium paid in advance in consideration of the loan, and that such consideration was over and above the interest allowed by-law, the transaction is usurious. *Ins. Co.*v. *Kittle,*1 McCrary, 234.* It is not necessary in such a case to show that the premiums charged were unreasonable. It will he presumed that there was in the transaction of insurance a profit to the insurance company, the lender; and if, independently of the premium paid in advance, the maximum rate of interest has been charged and taken, the insurance and the payment of a premium in advance, if intended as a condition precedent to and a further consideration for the loan, will make it usurious. The profit accruing to the lender from the insurance transaction in such a case will be presumed to be something, and, whether great or small, being in excess of the lawful interest, it is usury.

We have, therefore, only to consider whether the proof in this case shows that the policy of insurance upon the life of the respondent was required as a condition precedent to the loan and constituted an additional consideration therefor. This question must, in view of the evidence, he answered in the affirmative. It seems that the proposition was distinctly made to the respondent that if he would apply for a $10,000 life policy the company would loan him $2,000, and the *806proposition was assented to The company afterwards insisted upon a modification of the agreement so far as to make the amount of the loan $1,000 instead of $2,000; but it is, I think, clear from the proof that no loan of any amount would have been made if the respondent had refused to take'the insurance and permit the premium ($285) to be retained in advance from the sum loaned. It: s equally clear that the respondent would have declined to tase the insurance but for the offer with it, and as a part of the same transaction, of a loan. Indeed, it is manifest that the insurance was demanded as an additional consideration, and more or less valuable, for the loan. This being the case, clearly, within the rule above stated, the complainant is entitled only to decree for balance due on the principal of the debt, and must pay the costs.

*

 S. C. 2 Fed. Rep. 113.
Document

Exhibit 4.9

TWELFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
PROTHENA CORPORATION PLC
2020 EMPLOYMENT INDUCEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN


This Twelfth Amendment (this “Twelfth Amendment”) to the Prothena Corporation plc 2020 Employment Inducement Incentive Plan (“2020 EIIP”), was made and adopted by the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Prothena Corporation plc, a public limited company organized under the laws of Ireland (the “Company”), on July 1, 2022 (the “Amendment Date”).


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the Company maintains the 2020 EIIP; and


WHEREAS, the Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to amend the 2020 EIIP to increase the number of ordinary shares authorized for issuance under the 2020 EIIP.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 2020 EIIP is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the Amendment Date:


AMENDMENT


1.Section 2.28 of the 2020 EIIP is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


“2.28 “Overall Share Limit” means 1,435,000 Shares.”


2.This Twelfth Amendment shall be and hereby is incorporated into and forms a part of the 2020 EIIP, and except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the 2020 EIIP shall remain in full force and effect.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 24 (Friday, February 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6283-6284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2525]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-17-000]


Bay Gas Storage Company, Ltd.; Notice of Staff Panel

January 30, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission will convene a staff panel in the 
above-referenced proceeding on Thursday, February 26, 2009, at 9:30 
a.m. (EDT), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This Staff Panel will review the factual basis for Bay Gas's 2008 
annual adjustment to its Lost And Unaccounted For (LAUF) gas tracker/
true-up mechanism. A previous Commission Order in this docket, 126 FERC 
] 61,018 (January 12, 2009), ordered this Staff Panel to gather 
evidence in order to determine whether the updated LAUF recovery 
percentages reflected in Bay Gas's petition are fair and equitable.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#630200000610100a010a0f0a171a23050611004d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c2d2f2f293f3f252e25202538350c2a293e2f622b233a">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free

[[Page 6284]]

(866) 208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to 202-208-
2106 with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further 
information please contact Vince Mareino at (202) 502-6167 or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#792f10171a1c5734180b1c101716391f1c0b1a571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8adce3e4e9efa4c7ebf8efe3e4e5caeceff8e9a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2525 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.19 

 

PUT/CALL, REGISTRATION RIGHTS 

 

AND 

 

STANDSTILL AGREEMENT 

 

Dated as of January 1, 1998 

 

among 

 

MARATHON OIL COMPANY, 

 

USX CORPORATION, 

 

ASHLAND INC. 

 

and 

 

MARATHON ASHLAND PETROLEUM LLC 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 
      **Page**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                 5
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       5
<PP&E>                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         5
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  61,960
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                               97,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                            (159,615)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           5
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       0
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          5
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (5)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (5)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                          (5)
<EPS-BASIC>                          00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          00


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Nicholas Carter certify that:6. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Arabian American DevelopmentCompany;7. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;8. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;9. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and10. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.Date: April 5 , 2007                                            /s/ NICHOLAS CARTER   Nicholas Carter   Treasurer
----

**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Michael Ash, CFO of The Tirex Corporation (the "Company") do herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
2. 

The information contained in thereport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Michael Ash                    Michael Ash, CFO

Date: February 11, 2009