alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne A. THOMPSON, a.k.a. Lester Leonard Moore, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-12478

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 4, 2011.

Peggy Morris Ronca, J. Bishop Ravenel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, A. Brian Albritton, David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joseph R. Johnson, Attorney at Law, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph R. Johnson, appointed counsel for Dwayne A. Thompson in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Thompson’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Javier CISNEROS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-51365

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 2008.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Suite B-207, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

*401PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Javier Cisneros raises arguments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### John Paul TURNER, a/k/a Pops, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION; Social Security Administration; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Defense; United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Augusta County Circuit Court, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-1345.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 16, 2008.

Decided: May 7, 2008.

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

*309Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Turner v. Veterans Administration,*No. 7:08-cv-00234-sgw (W.D.Va. Mar. 18, 2008). We deny the motion to consolidate and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Form of Amendment to Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement


 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION GRANT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION GRANT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of
                    , 2007 by and between CHENIERE ENERGY, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and each of the undersigned
optionees (“Optionee”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company has previously granted to Optionee certain Non-Qualified Stock Options (the
“Options”) to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock, $.003 par value per share, subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), and as provided
in a Non-Qualified Stock Option Grant described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Stock Option Grant”) previously executed by the Company and Optionee; 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Plan, the Company and Optionee desire to amend the Stock Option Grant in order to provide for accelerated vesting upon certain conditions in accordance with the terms of
the Plan; 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

 1. Paragraph IV of the Stock Option Grant is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following shall be added in its place: 
 “IV. Forfeiture of Options; Acceleration of Vesting. If Optionee’s employment or other service with the Company or any subsidiary shall
be terminated for any reason, any Options not then vested shall not vest (except as otherwise provided herein), shall be forfeited back to the Company and shall be available for re-issuance under the Plan; provided, however, that any such Options
not then vested shall vest upon (i) termination, removal or resignation of Optionee for any reason within one (1) year from the effective date of a Change of Control, or (ii) death or Disability of Optionee. Optionee shall have six
(6) months after termination from employment or service during which to exercise any Options which are exercisable as of the date of termination whether through acceleration, as provided above, or through the vesting schedule applicable to this
grant. Any Options not exercised within such six-month period shall terminate, shall be forfeited back to the Company and shall be available for re-issuance under the Plan.” 
 2. Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stock Option Grant and
the Plan. 
 3. Except as modified and amended in this Amendment, the Stock Option Grant shall remain in full force and effect. 

4. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one
and the same instrument. 






 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been entered into and is effective as of the date set forth above.

  

			
	 COMPANY:

	 Cheniere Energy, Inc.

		
	 By:
	 	  

	 Name:
	 	  

	 Title:
	 	  









 AMENDMENT TO 
 NON-QUALIFIED
STOCK OPTION GRANT 
  

			
	 OPTIONEE:

		
	 By:
	 	  

	 Name:
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Gary Schultheis, President and Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Evolve One, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Evolve One, Inc..

August 27, 2004
                                    By: /s/Gary Schultheis
                                    Name: Gary Schultheis
                                    Title: President and Principal Financial and
                                           Accounting Officer
[No. 63929-3-I.

Division One.

October 22, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. David E. Lange, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 09-1-02159-3, Michael Heavey, J., entered July 6, 2009. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Lau, J.,

concurred in by Becker and Schindler, JJ.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44956

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

KATIE MARIE BEASLEY

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 667

Filed: December 14, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for possession of methamphetamine, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Befo re GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Katie Marie Beasley was found guilty of possession of methamphetamine , Idaho C ode

§ 37

- 2732(C) . The district court imposed a unified sentence of four years, with a minimum

period of confinement of one year, suspended the sentence and placed Beasley on probation

. Beasley appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2 1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Beasley ’s jud gment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 23.0





CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-42670, 333-69374, and 333-69376) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option Plan, As Amended, Stock Subscription Warrant, 1995 International Employee Stock Purchase Plan, As Amended, French Employee Savings Plan,
As Amended and the 2001 Stock Option Plan of Business Objects, S.A. of our report dated January 28, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Business Objects, S.A. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2001.





| | /s/ | Ernst & Young LLP
| | --- | -----------------




San Jose, California


March 26, 2002
STRATS Trust For Procter & Gamble Securities, Series 2006-1 10-K



Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I,Barbara Garafalo, certify that:



1.       I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
on Form 10-K of STRATS Trust For Procter & Gamble Securities, Series 2006-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



2.       Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;



3.       Based
on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;



4.       Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
respects; and



5.       All of
the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports
on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
this report on Form 10-K.



In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied
on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.





|Dated: March 30, 2020 | By:                                                           | /s/ Barbara
    Garafalo
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------
|                      |                                                               | Barbara Garafalo        
|                      |                                                               | Vice President          
|                      | (senior officer of depositor in
    charge of securitization)
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 List of Subsidiaries Subsidiaries
    
    State or Jurisdiction of IncorporationBusiness Objects Software Ltd.
    
    IrelandBusiness Objects (France) S.A.S.
    
    FranceBusiness Objects (UK) Ltd.
    
    United KingdomBusiness Objects Americas
    
    DelawareBusiness Objects Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.
    
    Singapore (India branch office)Business Objects Australia Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaBusiness Objects BeLux S.A./N.V.
    
    Belgium (Luxembourg branch office)Business Objects Corp.
    
    New Brunswick and United StatesBusiness Objects Data Integration, Inc.
    
    DelawareBusiness Objects de Brasil Ltda
    
    BrazilBusiness Objects de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoBusiness Objects Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyBusiness Objects Finland Ltd.
    
    FinlandBusiness Objects Greater China Ltd.
    
    Hong Kong (Beijing representative office)Business Objects Iberica S.L.
    
    SpainBusiness Objects Italia S.p.A.
    
    ItalyBusiness Objects Japan KK
    
    JapanBusiness Objects Korea Ltd.
    
    KoreaBusiness Objects Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaBusiness Objects Nederland B.V.
    
    NetherlandsBusiness Objects Nordic A.B.
    
    SwedenBusiness Objects Option LLC
    
    DelawareBusiness Objects Schweiz A.G.
    
    SwitzerlandBusiness Objects Software (Shanghai) Co., Ltd
    
    ChinaBusiness Objects South Africa (Proprietary) Ltd.
    
    South AfricaCrystal Decisions (Hong Kong) Limited
    
    Hong Kong (Shanghai representative office)Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom and Delaware
#### Teresa E. Myers, Respondent, v Bradley J. Myers, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[987 NYS2d 289]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (James W. McCarthy, J.), entered November 20, 2012. The order directed defendant to pay certain attorney’s fees of plaintiff.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Myers v Myers*(118 AD3d 1315 [June 13, 2014]).

Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report of Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").





In connection with the  Report, I, J. Ladd Greeno, Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











Dated:  May 17, 2010                                                                           /s/  J. Ladd Greeno_____________________________


J. Ladd Greeno


Chief Executive Officer (and Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clint Buster, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 462]

—Appeal by the defen*461dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered September 25, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to give a missing-witness charge is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to request the charge and cannot rely on the request of a codefendant *(see, People v Laboy,*208 AD2d .954).

In light of the sufficiency of the corroborative evidence, any error committed by the trial court in refusing to instruct the jury that the defendant could not be convicted without corroboration of his confession was harmless *(see, People v Coombs,*184 AD2d 651; *People v Pullman,*234 AD2d 955; *People v Rosado,*194 AD2d 466). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Joy and Lerner, JJ., concur.
Opinion issued October 8, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00720-CR

———————————

IN RE RONALD LEE TRAHAN, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Ronald Lee Trahan, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

requesting that we compel the Galveston County District Clerk to transmit to the 

trial court certain papers that relator contends relate to a motion for DNA testing.*

Our power to issue writs is defined in Section 22.221 of the Texas 

Government Code, which grants the courts of appeals the authority to issue (1) 

 

*

The underlying case is State of Texas v. Ronald Lee Trahan, cause number CRX36166, pending in the 212th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the 

Honorable Patricia Grady presiding.
2

writs of mandamus and other writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction; (2) writs 

of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals’ 

district; and (3) writs of habeas corpus under specifically defined circumstances 

involving contempt orders in civil cases. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221 (West 

2004). This court has mandamus jurisdiction over a district court clerk only when 

the district court clerk’s actions interfere with this court’s jurisdiction. See id.; In re 

Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). 

Trahan has not established that the district court clerk’s actions interfere with this 

court’s jurisdiction or that a writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3509 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize State agricultural mediation programs under 

title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3509 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Credit Act 

3 of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

5 Section 506 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 

6 (7 U.S.C. 5106) is amended by striking ‘‘2010’’ and in7 serting ‘‘2015’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 18, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3509 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize State agricultural mediation proAct of 1987. grams under title V of the Agricultural Credit
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3497 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that indebtedness 

incurred by a partnership in acquiring securities and commodities is 

not treated as acquisition indebtedness for purposes of determining the 

unrelated business taxable income of organizations which are partners 

with limited liability. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2009 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, and Mr. MCDERMOTT) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

that indebtedness incurred by a partnership in acquiring 

securities and commodities is not treated as acquisition 

indebtedness for purposes of determining the unrelated 

business taxable income of organizations which are partners with limited liability. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3497 IH

1 SECTION 1. INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED BY A PARTNERSHIP 

2 IN ACQUIRING SECURITIES AND COMMOD3 ITIES NOT TREATED AS ACQUISITION IN4 DEBTEDNESS FOR PURPOSES OF DETER5 MINING UNRELATED BUSINESS TAXABLE IN6 COME OF ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ARE PART7 NERS WITH LIMITED LIABILITY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 514 of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to acquisition 

10 indebtedness) is amended by adding at the end the fol11 lowing new paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(10) SECURITIES AND COMMODITIES AC13 QUIRED BY PARTNERSHIPS IN WHICH AN ORGANIZA14 TION IS A PARTNER WITH LIMITED LIABILITY.— 

15 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any or16 ganization which is a partner with limited liabil17 ity in a partnership, the term ‘acquisition in18 debtedness’ does not, for purposes of this sec19 tion, include indebtedness incurred or continued 

20 by such partnership in purchasing or carrying 

21 any qualified security or commodity. 

22 ‘‘(B) QUALIFIED SECURITY OR COM23 MODITY.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

24 term ‘qualified security or commodity’ means 

25 any security (as defined in section 475(c)(2) 

26 without regard to the last sentence thereof), 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3497 IH

1 any commodity (as defined in section 

2 475(e)(2)), or any option or derivative contract 

3 with respect to such a security or commodity. 

4 ‘‘(C) APPLICATION TO TIERED PARTNER5 SHIPS AND OTHER PASS-THRU ENTITIES.— 

6 Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (A) 

7 shall apply in the case of tiered partnerships 

8 and other pass-thru entities. 

9 ‘‘(D) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary may 

10 prescribe such regulations as may be necessary 

11 or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this 

12 paragraph, including regulations to prevent the 

13 abuse of this paragraph.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS