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

No. 12-10295.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 12, 2012.

Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Nancy J. Koppe, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alina Maria Shell, Jonathan Sussman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TROTT and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*671MEMORANDUM ***

Carrillo appeals his sentence imposed following his admitted violation of multiple terms of supervised release. Because Carrillo’s counsel did not object to the sentence he now appeals, we review for plain error. *United States v. Waknine,*543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir.2008). In so doing, we do not discern any error in the challenged proceedings, much less error that was “plain” or that affected Carrillo’s “substantial rights.” *Id.*Because the methamphetamine he possessed was individually packaged in six different bags, the evidence supports an inference — unchallenged in the district court — that the possession of the illegal substance was for sale. *United States v. Martinez,*967 F.2d 1343, 1345-46 (9th Cir.1992). This violation constituted a felony offense in Nevada and supports a Grade A violation. These circumstances support in turn the sentence imposed of 18 months imprisonment with an additional term of 42 months of supervised release.

As to Carrillo’s allegations of errors in the judgment of conviction, the matter is remanded to the district court to revisit only (1) whether the written judgment accurately conforms to the court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence and the court’s intentions, and (2) whether a typographical error exists with respect to the amount of the fíne.

AFFIRMED IN PART. REMANDED for the limited purpose of revisiting the written judgment of conviction.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 412 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 16282
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 412 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 16283
#### Anthony NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ray HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Greg Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Steve Outlaw, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Paulette Green, Previously Identified as P. Green, Classification Officer, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; William Gay, Mental Health Case Worker, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, Defendants-Appellees, R. Clemmons, Lt., East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; S. DeCoursey, Sgt., East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Hughes, CO-II, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, Defendants, Adrian Wallace, Previously Identified as A. Wallace, CO-II, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; April Brandon, Previously Identified as Brandon, Sgt., East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, Defendants-Appellees, Barnes, CO-II, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, Defendant.

No. 12-2940.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 4, 2013.

Filed: April 11, 2013.

Anthony Nelson, Grady, AR, pro se.

Hester Irene Criswell, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Nelson appeals from the district court’s1 entry of judgment upon an adverse jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and the record before us on appeal, we conclude that Nelson’s claims *606are not susceptible to meaningful review because he failed to provide a transcript of the trial proceedings. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(1) (discussing appellant’s duty to order transcript); *Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am.,*827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (where pro se appellant did not order trial transcript, appellate court could not review claim of judicial bias, evidentiary rulings, or sufficiency of evidence). We further conclude that his complaints about his counsel’s performance are not a basis for relief in this civil matter. *See Taylor v. Dickel,*293 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir.2002) (no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in civil case, even for plaintiff who had been appointed counsel; proper remedy is action for malpractice).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
##### 



EXHIBIT 4.16

[Translation]

** This exhibit contains confidential material which has been omitted
pursuant to a Confidential Treatment Request. The omitted information has
been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Outsourcing and Fee Agreement Amendment

Introduction

This agreement (Agreement) is made between Crayfish Co., Ltd. (Crayfish)
and Global Media Online (GMO) (the Parties) and amends, as applicable, the
Outsourcing Fees agreement (Outsourcing Fee Agreement) between the Parties
dated September 30, 2002, which is based on the Outsourcing Agreement between
the Parties (Outsourcing Agreement) dated September 30, 2002. The Parties
hereby agree as follows:

Paragraph 1.   Purpose

The purpose of this Agreement is to amend the Price Per Subscriber shown in
Paragraph 3 of the Outsourcing Fee Agreement in accordance with **.

Paragraph 2.   Amendments



|1. |  | The revised Price Per Subscriber (Revised Price Per Subscriber) shown
in Paragraph 3 of the Outsourcing Fee Agreement shall be **.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. |  | The Revised Price Per Subscriber shall become effective on November 1,
2002.                                                        

Paragraph 3.   Others

Terms not defined herein shall have the meanings as set forth in the
Outsourcing Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of party shall execute the Agreement and both Crayfish
and GMO shall keep the original.

Date: November 1, 2002

Crayfish Co., Ltd.
Toshima-ku Ikebukuro 2-2-1 Tokyo
/s/ Kazuhiko Muraki sealed by stamp
Kazuhiko Muraki
President and Representative Director

Global Media Online Inc.
Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku 26-1, Tokyo
/s/ Masatoshi Kumagai sealed by stamp
Masatoshi Kumagai
President and Representative Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Crim. No. 11-366 (JLL)

V.

JOHN ALFY SALAMA MARKUS,

a/k/a “John Salama,” : PROTECTIVE ORDER ON CONSENT

a/k/a “John Alfy Salama”

This application having been opened to the Court by the

United States Attorney (Sandra L. Moser, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appearing) under Rule 16(d) (1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure for a protective order limiting the disclosure of the

contents of a recorded telephone conversation marked “10/28/10

Recorded Call” that has been or will be made available to counsel

for defendant John Alfy Salama Markus (Michael Rogers, ESq.,

appearing), and the Court, having the consent of the parties, and

for good cause shown,

IT IS on this day of 2012,

ORDERED that:

1. The disc containing the recorded telephone conversation

shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the

defendant, the defendant’s counsel, and any agent

working at the direction of defense counsel in this

matter;

2. Notwithstanding any other provision, the defense shall

be permitted to disclose any materials provided in

Paragraph 1 in connection with the filing of the
defendant’s motions with the Court, or for use at

trial, subject to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41.1; and

3. If there is a need prior to trial or during trial to

disclose the disc containing the recorded telephone

conversation beyond that permitted by this Order, then

the defendant will make an application to the Court

upon notice to the government, requesting

authorization.

HOJiABLE JOSE L. LINARES

UED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of The Children’s Internet, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Lewis,
      Acting Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
      knowledge:




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




April
      11,
      2008




/s/
              Richard J. Lewis, IIIRichard
                J. Lewis, III
              Acting
                Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
                Officer
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Crown Castle International Corp. 
 Summary of Non-Employee Director
Compensation 
 Initial Equity Grant. Each newly appointed or elected non-employee director is granted,
pursuant to the Crown Castle International Corp. (“Company”) 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, a number of unrestricted shares of common stock of the Company (“Common Stock”) having a valuation equal to approximately
$90,000, valued at the per share closing price of the Common Stock as of the effective date of the director’s appointment or election. 
 Annual Equity Grant. At the Board’s first regularly scheduled meeting of each year, each non-employee director is granted shares of Common Stock having a valuation equal to
approximately $125,000 ($200,000 in the case of the Chairman of the Board), valued at the per share closing price of the Common Stock as of the date of such Board meeting. On February 21, 2013, the Board granted (1) 1,838 shares of common
stock (priced at $68.00, the closing price of the Common Stock on February 21, 2013) to each non-employee director of the Board, other than J. Landis Martin and (2) 2,941 shares of common stock (priced at $68.00, the closing price of the
Common Stock on February 21, 2013) to J. Landis Martin for service as non-employee Chairman of the Board. 

Retainers. Each non-employee director receives an annual retainer, paid in quarterly installments, of $75,000 (plus an
additional (1) $20,000 for the Chair of the Audit Committee, (2) $10,000 for the Chair of each of the Compensation Committee, Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee and Strategy Committee, and (3) $5,000 for each member
of the Audit Committee other than the Chair), and reimbursement of reasonable incidental expenses. 
 Other Benefits.
Each non-employee director is eligible to participate, at such director’s cost and election, in the Company’s medical and dental plans. 
 Employee Directors. A director who is also an employee of the Company receives no additional compensation for services as a director.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16558]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1341-000]


Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

July 7, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is July 27, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e9afacbbaaa6878580878cba9c9999869b9da98f8c9b8ac78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a7c7f687975545653545f694f4a4a55484e7a5c5f4859145d554c">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-16558 Filed 7-13-09; 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>
#### STATE MUT. LIFE ASSUR. CO. v. LEIMER et al.

No. 1107.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Nov. 25, 1942.

Lathrop, Crane, Reynolds, Sawyer & Mersereau, John H. Lathrop, and William S. Hogsett, all of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Walter A. Leimer, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant

REEVES, District Judge.

The question presented here is whether certain averments appearing in the answers of the plaintiff to the counter-claims of the defendants should be stricken.

 An examination of the pleadings shows that the averments in said answers are proper responsive pleading. The two defendants filed separate counter-claims to plaintiff’s claim, which is a suit for malicious prosecution. On such counter-claims the defendants sought recovery for claims therein stated against the plaintiff. Paragraph by paragraph the plaintiff made answer to such averments and the several motions of the defendants -to strike followed. It is the law that a counter-claim must be pleaded as fully and distinctly and with the same substantial requisites as an original cause of action. In like manner, the answer to a counter-claim must, under the laws, be precisely as full and complete as an answer in an original suit.

It is unnecessary to set out the averments sought to be stricken for the reason that each and every one is apt and pertinent and constitute, if the averments are true, a complete defense. Accordingly said motions to strike, and each of them, will be denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 8

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

|                                                  |  |                                |  | 
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  | 
|Name                                              |  | Jurisdiction                  
|                                                  |  |                               
|SUNDAY Holdings (Hong Kong) Corporation           |  | British Virgin Islands        
|Mandarin Communications Limited                   |  | Hong Kong                     
|SUNDAY 3G Holdings (Hong Kong) Corporation        |  | British Virgin Islands        
|SUNDAY 3G (Hong Kong) Limited                     |  | Hong Kong                     
|SUNDAY Holdings (China) Corporation               |  | British Virgin Islands        
|SUNDAY Communications Services (Shenzhen) Limited |  | The People's Republic of China
|SUNDAY IP Holdings Corporation                    |  | British Virgin Islands        
|SUNDAY IP Limited                                 |  | British Virgin Islands        

E-1
#### Kelly CINEUS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Keith HALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-10352

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2012.

Kelly Cineus, Eden, TX, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kelly Cineus, federal prisoner # 65911-004, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of the most recent petition challenging his conviction in the Southern District of Florida for importation of cocaine and a removal order and related detainer pending against him. He asserts that Titles 8, 21, and 28 of the United States Code and his statute of conviction are unconstitutional and void because they were not passed in accordance with proper legislative procedures. He also claims we should vacate the criminal judgment because the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

Cineus does not address the district court’s reasons for certifying that his appeal was not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). He does not explain how the District Court for the Northern District of Texas had jurisdiction to consider a challenge to his Southern District of Florida conviction. He does not explain why his petition was not an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He does not explain how he was entitled to file the petition in light of the district court’s previous orders sanctioning him for frivolous and malicious filings. Nor does he explain how the court had jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the removal order. Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

The failure by Cineus to address the district court’s bases for dismissing his claims, “without even the slightest identification of any error in [the district court’s] legal analysis or its application to [his] suit ..., is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Moreover, his substantive claims are nonsensical and frivolous. Because the appeal does not involve legal points arguable on their merits, the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVO*352LOUS. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE JOHNSON & JOHNSON 

DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 10-2033 (FLW)

IN RE JOHNSON & JOHNSON FCPA 

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE 

LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 11-2511 (FLW)

COPELAND v. PRINCE, ET AL. Civil Action No. 11-4993 (FLW)

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Theodore H. Frank (pro hac vice)

CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS 

1718 M Street NW, No. 236

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: (703) 203-3848

Email: tedfrank@gmail.com

David M. Nieporent

SAMUEL & STEIN

38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110

New York, NY 10001

Phone: (212) 563-9884

Fax: (212) 563-9870

Email: dnieporent@samuelandstein.com

Attorneys for Objector Mark Petri

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 86 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1646
2

Notice is hereby given that objecting shareholder Mark Petri hereby appeals to 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the Final Order and 

Judgment Approving Settlement filed on October 26 (3:10-cv-02033 ECF No. 227;

3:11-cv-02511 ECF No. 84; 3:11-cv-04993 ECF No. 71); and all orders and opinions 

that merge therein, including the Order denying Petri’s Motion to Intervene and 

Motion to Dismiss (3:10-cv-2033 ECF No. 228; 3:11-cv-02511 ECF No. 85; 3:11-cv04993 ECF No. 72); and the Opinion filed on October 26 (3:10-cv-02033 ECF No. 

226; 3:11-cv-02511 ECF No. 83; 3:11-cv-04993 ECF No. 70).

Dated: November 19, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

David M. Nieporent

SAMUEL & STEIN

38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110

New York, NY 10001

Phone: (212) 563-9884

Fax: (212) 563-9870

Email: dnieporent@samuelandstein.com

Theodore H. Frank (pro hac vice)

CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS 

1718 M Street NW, No. 236

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone: (703) 203-3848

Email: tedfrank@gmail.com

Attorneys for Intervenor and Objector 

Mark G. Petri

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 86 Filed 11/19/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1647
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, David M. Nieporent, hereby certify that the foregoing Notice of Appeal has 

today been filed electronically constituting service on all counsel who are ECF 

registered filers in this case. Additionally, I further certify that I caused the said 

document to be sent by first class mail to the following non-ECF registered counsel:

BRENT CLIFTON

KIMBERLY J. CLIFTON

C/O GARY W. SIBLEY

2602 MCKINNEY AVENUE

SUITE 210

DALLAS, TX 75204

JOHN HENN

FOLEY HOAG LLP

SEAPORT WEST

155 SEAPORT BOULEVARD

BOSTON, MA 02210

JOHN E. NOTESTEIN

15214 E. SUNDOWN DRIVE

FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ 85268

MERTON S. ROTHMAN

42 ASPEN DRIVE WEST

WOODBURY, NY 11797

ROBERT D. STUART

1210 N. TAFT STREET

APT. 606

ARLINGTON, VA 22201

THOMAS C. KEEGAN

1340 TAYLOR RIDGE COURT

ERIE, PA 16505

DATED: November 19, 2012

Co-Counsel for Appellant

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 86 Filed 11/19/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1648