alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 14759 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s
. 2:16

- cv
- 00506

- MHT

- SRW , 2:02

- cr
- 00201

- MHT

- SRW

- 1

RENARD CORTEZ MURRAY,
Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________ ( May 1, 2020 ) Before WILSON , WILLIAM PRYOR and LAGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIA M: Renard Murray appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , for aiding and abetting another to possess a firearm during a bank

Case: 19-14759 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 1 of 22 ro bbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

. The district court granted a certificate of appealability
for whether Murray’s conviction based on a guilty plea is constitutional in the light
of the decisions in United States v. Davis , 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) , and Johnson v.
United States , 135 S. Ct. 255 1 (2015)

. Murray contends that the predicate offense

to which he pleaded guilty , aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery, is not a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3). Our precedents hold otherwise. We affirm. In an appeal of a denial of a motion to v acate , we review questions of law de

novo and factual findings for clear error. Lynn v. United States , 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). W e may affirm for any reason supported by the record.
Castillo v. United States , 816 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 20 16). As Murray concedes, o ur precedents control this appeal. Although in Davis the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of section 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague , 139 S. Ct. at 2323, 2336 , our precedents establish that aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery is categorically a crime of violence under
the elements clause of section 924 (c) (3)(A)

. In re Sams , 830 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2016) ; In re Colon , 826 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2016)

. So we affirm the denial of Murray’s motion to vacate

. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-14759 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22378]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

[NPS-NERO-CEBE-24090; PPNECEBE00, PPMPSAS1Z.Y00000]


Cancellation of September 21, 2017, Meeting of the Cedar Creek 
and Belle Grove National Historical Park Advisory Commission

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Cancellation of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice 
is hereby given that the September 21, 2017, meeting of the Cedar Creek 
and Belle Grove National Historical Park Advisory Commission previously 
announced in the Federal Register, Vol. 82, January 19, 2017, pp. 6643, 
is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information concerning the 
meetings may be obtained from Karen Beck-Herzog, Site Manager, Cedar 
Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, P.O. Box 700, 
Middletown, Virginia 22645, telephone (540) 868-9176, or visit the park 
Web site: http://www.nps.gov/cebe/parkmgmt/park-advisory-commission.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Commission was designated by 
Congress to provide advice to the Secretary of the Interior in the 
preparation and implementation of the park's general management plan 
and in the identification of sites of significance outside the park 
boundary (16 U.S.C. 410iii-7).

Alma Ripps,
Chief, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-22378 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, 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 Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-013
     (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 in order 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;

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 Rule 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 certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

K.J. BRUBAKER, M.C. HOLIFIELD, J.S. SMITH

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DANIEL C. TILLER

AVIATION ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN THIRD CLASS (E-4), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201500268

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 1 May 2015.

Military Judge: CDR Marcus Fulton, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Hawaii, Pearl 

Harbor, HI.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LCDR J.S. Ayeroff, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: LT Rachel E. Weidemann, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller, Esq.

17 December 2015

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted without 

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as 

approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of 

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 344 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a full deduction 

for meals and lodging in connection with medical care. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2009 

Mr. PLATTS 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 allow a 

full deduction for meals and lodging in connection with 

medical care. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FULL DEDUCTION FOR MEALS AND LODGING 

4 IN CONNECTION WITH MEDICAL CARE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 213(d) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts 

7 paid for certain lodging away from home treated as paid 

8 for medical care) is amended— 

9 (1) by inserting ‘‘MEALS AND’’ before ‘‘LODG10 ING’’ in the heading, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 344 IH

1 (2) by inserting ‘‘meals and’’ before ‘‘lodging’’ 

2 in the text, and 

3 (3) by striking the last sentence. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3390 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive the 10 percent 

penalty on distributions from certain retirement plans during periods 

of high unemployment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2009 

Mr. HOEKSTRA 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 waive 

the 10 percent penalty on distributions from certain retirement plans during periods of high unemployment. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Retirement Account 

5 Freedom Act of 2009’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3390 IH

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF 10 PERCENT PENALTY ON DISTRIBU2 TIONS FROM CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLANS 

3 DURING PERIODS OF HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 72(t) of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 10-percent 

6 additional tax on early distributions from qualified retire7 ment plans) is amended by adding at the end the following 

8 new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(H) DISTRIBUTIONS DURING PERIODS OF

10 HIGH NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT.— 

11 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Distributions to 

12 an individual— 

13 ‘‘(I) from an individual retire14 ment plan, or from amounts attrib15 utable to employer contributions made 

16 pursuant to elective deferrals de17 scribed in subparagraph (A) or (C) of 

18 section 402(g)(3) or section 

19 501(c)(18)(D)(iii), and 

20 ‘‘(II) during any period that the 

21 national rate of unemployment is at 

22 least 7 percent. 

23 ‘‘(ii) LIMITATION.— 

24 ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) 

25 shall not apply to the extent that the 

26 aggregate distributions during the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 3390 IH

1 taxable year exceed 10 percent of the 

2 aggregate account balances at the be3 ginning of such year in the plans. 

4 ‘‘(II) ACCOUNT BALANCE.—For 

5 purposes of subclause (I), in the case 

6 of a distribution other than from an 

7 individual retirement plan, the ac8 count balance shall include only 

9 amounts attributable to employer con10 tributions described in clause (i)(I).’’. 

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

12 this section shall apply to distributions received in taxable 

13 years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Debah Smith, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 874]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J.), rendered on or about March 6, 1996, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for *115leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.
H. R. 3119 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 867 Stockton 

Street in San Francisco, California, as the ‘‘Lim Poon Lee Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LIM POON LEE POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 867 Stockton Street in San Francisco, California, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lim Poon Lee Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lim Poon Lee Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Amendment Borrower
 WITNESSETH
 LCPI Administrative Agent Lenders Credit Agreement
   Fifth Third
   Defined Terms
 Amendment to Section 1.1 of the Credit Agreement (Defined Terms)




---



##### 



Reinvestment Deferred Amount
 Reinvestment Notice
  Eighth Amendment
 Eighth Amendment Effective Date
 Group One Properties
 Group Two Property
 Group Two Net Cash Proceeds less
 Permitted Group Two Property Disposition
 -2-




---



##### 



Total Consideration
 Amendment to Section 2.10(c) of the Credit Agreement (Mandatory Prepayments)
 provided
 -3-




---



##### 



Amendment to Section 7.5 of the Credit Agreement (Limitation on Disposition of
Property)
    provided
 Successor Administrative Agent and Successor Swing Line Lender
  Successor Administrative Agent
 -4-




---



##### 



Successor Swing Line Lender
 Conditions to Effectiveness Eighth Amendment Effective Date
 Amendment
 Acknowledgment and Consent
 Amendment Fee Signing Lenders
 Fees, etc
 -5-




---



##### 



Representations and Warranties
 Amendment
Documents Amended Credit Agreement
    -6-




---



##### 



Payment of Expenses
 Limited Effect
 GOVERNING LAW
 Miscellaneous
  -7-




---



##### 



MAPCO EXPRESS, INC., as the BorrowerBy:
    /s/ Edward MorganName:Title:By:
    /s/ Gregory A. IntemannName:Title:




---



##### 



, asa LenderBy:Name:Title:
[No. 66954-1-I.

Division One.

October 22, 2012.]

#### *In the Matter of the Estate of*Michael J. Fitzgerald. Maria Luisa De La Vega Fitzgerald, *as Personal Representative, Respondent,*v. Mountain-West Resources, Inc., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 09-4-04947-2, Carlos Y. Velategui, J. Pro Tern., entered April 18,2011 *.Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Dwyer, J.,

concurred in by Becker and Appelwick, JJ. Now published at 172 Wn. App. 437.
1Pursuant 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 Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 29, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 03-51321

SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ESTHER C. HUTCHINSON,

Defendant - Appellant;

______________________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

(P-03-CR-176-ALL)

______________________________________________________________________________

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1

In this appeal, we review Esther Hutchinson’s conviction for possession and aiding and

abetting the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Hutchinson argues that the

evidence that she was aware of the marijuana found hidden in her van was insufficient to support

her conviction.

We review Hutchinson’s claim of insufficient evidence for whether, viewing all of the
-2-

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that

the evidence establishes the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. United

States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 322 (5th Cir. 2003).

We find that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Hutchinson was

noticeably pre-occupied with the drug-detecting dog used by the border patrol agents. She

offered several inconsistent accounts of and reasons for her trip to Mexico. Agents testified that

Hutchinson did not seem surprised or upset when they told her they had found marijuana in her

van. Finally, Hutchinson then refused to tell the agents who had arranged for her to borrow the

van. Thus, a jury could reasonably conclude that Hutchinson was aware of the marijuana hidden

in the van she was driving. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, the conviction is AFFIRMED.
Ex-10.4



 





EXHIBIT 10.4




EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT




     This Employment Agreement Amendment (“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of March 31,
2007 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Wright Medical Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), and John K. Bakewell (the “Employee”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee are parties to an Employment Agreement entered into as of
November 22, 2005 (the “Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the terms of the Agreement provide that it should expire on March 31, 2007; and



     WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional one (1) year
term;



     NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing, and for and in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:



     1. The Agreement is hereby amended by replacing “March 31, 2007” in Paragraph 7(a) with “March
31, 2008” thereby extending the term of the Agreement for an additional one year period.



     2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not specifically amended herein shall
remain in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date. This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



AGREED AND ACCEPTED




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.	 	 	 	JOHN K. BAKEWELL	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Gary D. Henley
 

Gary D. Henley
	 	 	 	/s/ John K. Bakewell
 

	 	 
	 

	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
NO. 03-14-00531-CR

DERRICK KUYKENDALL * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appellant *

VS. * OF THE THIRD

* SUPREME JUDICIAL

* DISTRICT OF TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS *

Appellee * AT AUSTIN TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

APPELLATE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Appellant, and files this Motion for an Extension in which to

file the Appellant’s Brief. In support of this motion, appellant shows the Court the

following:

I.

The Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Travis County, Texas of

the offense of Manslaughter. After a probation revocation hearing, Appellant was

assessed 15 years TDCJ. 

II.

The deadline for filing the Appellant’s Brief is June 29, 2015 and Appellant has

requested no previous extensions.

III.

ACCEPTED

03-14-00531-CR

5951173

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

7/6/2015 6:07:16 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/6/2015 6:07:16 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Attorney for the Appellant would further show the Court that he has been

diligent in preparing Appellee’s brief in this case. Due to a very busy docket counsel

is unable to complete the brief within the time frame. Counsel requests an extension

of time so that he may adequately prepare Appellant’s Brief. Counsel must complete

his investigation of the record and draft the brief. 

WHEREFORE, Appellant prays the Court grant this Motion and extend the

deadline for filing the Appellant’s Brief to July 27, 2015. 

Respectfully Submitted,

ARIEL PAYAN

Attorney at Law

1012 Rio Grande

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 478-3900

(512) 472-4102 (fax)

Arielpayan@hotmail.com

 /s/ Ariel Payan 

ARIEL PAYAN

State Bar No. 00794430

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By my signature above, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above

and foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief has been delivered

to the Criminal District Attorney of said County Texas, on July 6, 2015.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

179 

KA 09-00992 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

JENNIFER L. ORTMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

WILLIAM G. PIXLEY, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (NEAL P.

MCCLELLAND OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J.

Doran, J.), rendered May 5, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon a jury verdict, of driving while ability impaired by the combined

influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs, a class E

felony, leaving the scene of an incident without reporting and

criminal mischief in the fourth degree (two counts). 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by defendant on March 29, 2011 and by the attorneys for the

parties on March 25 and April 4, 2011,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

upon stipulation.

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
Order entered December 8, 2017 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00450-CV 

JAMES T. CHAO, Appellant 

V. 

PLANO BUILDING STANDARD COMMISSION, CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 401-05450-2016 

ORDER 

We REINSTATE this appeal. 

By order dated November 8, 2017, we ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing and 

make written findings of fact regarding the accuracy of the reporter’s record. On December 5, 

2017, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed containing the trial court’s written findings of fact. 

The trial court found that the reporter’s record does not contain any inaccuracies. We ADOPT 

the trial court’s findings. 

Before the Court is appellant’s December 1, 2017 typewritten “Motion to Report on 

Hearing Issues from 401st District Court and with My Further Request for Your Guidance and 

Direction for Further Pursuit.” We DENY the motion. 
Also before the Court is appellant’s December 1, 2017 handwritten motion. This motion 

is illegible and difficult to read. It appears appellant is asking this Court to reverse the trial 

court’s order that is the subject of this appeal. We DENY the motion. Appellant shall address 

his arguments for reversal of the appealed order in his brief on the merits. 

Appellant’s brief is due January 5, 2018. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT 

 CHIEF JUSTICE