alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"FMC Commissioner Carl Bentzel Convenes Port Operation and Supply Chain Transparency Roundtables in California","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UMtlaKp128\"><a href=\"\/bentzel-convenes-port-operation-and-supply-chain-transparency-roundtables-in-california\/\">FMC Commissioner Carl Bentzel Convenes Port Operation and Supply Chain Transparency Roundtables in California<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/bentzel-convenes-port-operation-and-supply-chain-transparency-roundtables-in-california\/embed\/#?secret=UMtlaKp128\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC Commissioner Carl Bentzel Convenes Port Operation and Supply Chain Transparency Roundtables in California” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"UMtlaKp128\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 50267 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE ROBERTO FACUSE

- ANANIAS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:17

- CR

- 2694

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Roberto
Facuse

- Ananias has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Facuse

- Ananias h a s not f iled a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* 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 November 9, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50267 Document: 00514718240 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2018No. 18

- 50267

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 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: 18-50267 Document: 00514718240 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2018
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE

OF MARYLAND

* COURT OF APPEALS

v. * OF MARYLAND

* Misc. Docket AG No. 6 6

, LEWIS MAURICE SILBER

* September Term, 2019

O R D E R

WHEREAS , the parties have filed an Amended Joint Petition for Disbarment by

Consent pursuant to Maryland Rule 19

- 736 ;

WHEREAS , in the Amended Joint Petition, Respondent Lewis Maurice Silber

admits that , if a hearing were held, there would be sufficient evi dence to prove that he

misappropriated client and third

- party funds and thereby violate d Rules 1.15(a) and (d),

and 8.4(c) and (d) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduc t ;

WHEREAS , in the Amended Joint Petition, Mr. Silber contends that th e

misappropriation was unintentional and the result of poor accounting practices, but

nonetheless acknowledges that there is a sufficient factual basis for concluding that he

violated Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty);

WHEREAS

, this Court has not recognized neglige nt misappropriation as a basis

for finding a violation of Rule 8.4(c) and therefore understands Mr. Silber to be

acknowledging that there is sufficient evidence to prove intentional misappropriation in

violation of Rule 8.4(c);WHEREAS , upon consideration of the Amended Joint Petition

, it is this 28th day

of February , 20 20

,

ORDERED

, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Respondent, Lewis

Maurice Silber, be, and hereby is, disbarred from the practice of law in the State of

Mar yland

, and it is further

ORDERED , that the disbarment of Respondent shall not become effective until 120

days from the date of this Order , so long as Respondent complies with the Monitoring

Agreement attached to the Amended Joint Petition ; and it is further

ORDERED , that upon the date of disbarment

, the Clerk of this Court shall remove

the name of Lewis Maurice Silber from the register of attorneys in this Court and certify

that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the B ar of Maryland and all Clerks

of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19

- 736(d)

.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera

Chief Judge
#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Roberto AVALOS-PEREZ, also known as Roberto Avalos-Melgar, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-51144

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 2008.

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

David J. Kimmelman, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Roberto Avalos-Perez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres 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-Amilano,*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 5tii Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 31 CERTIFICATIONS I, Kjell I. Jagelid, hereby certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the report) of Simex Technologies, Inc.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; (4) The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) [Omitted] (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and (5) The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Dated: November 27, 2007/s/ Kjell I. JagelidKjell I. Jagelid
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"New Video Explains Charge Complaint Process\u00a0","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RvhdqBV7Kw\"><a href=\"\/new-video-explains-charge-complaint-process\/\">New Video Explains Charge Complaint Process\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/new-video-explains-charge-complaint-process\/embed\/#?secret=RvhdqBV7Kw\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“New Video Explains Charge Complaint Process\u00a0” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"RvhdqBV7Kw\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Document

Exhibit 10.3






207 N Goode Ave Ste 500
Glendale, California 92103
Phone 626 304-2000
Fax 626 792-7312


March 1, 2022    


Deon Stander
[Address]
[Address]




Dear Deon,


I am very pleased to offer you the position of President and Chief Operating Officer reporting directly to me. This will be effective March 1, 2022.


Specific details of our job offer are as follows:


Your annualized rate of pay will be $700,000 paid semi-monthly.  Your next salary review will be April 1, 2023.  Subsequent salary reviews will be conducted on April 1st of each year, or on another date designated by the Company for a given year.


Bonus:  You will continue to be eligible to be considered under Avery Dennison’s annual incentive plan (“AIP”) and will participate at a 75% of base salary opportunity level, with a linkage code of CRP01 - Corporate Worldwide, effective January 1, 2022, subject to applicable withholdings. The Annual Incentive Plan (AIP), including eligibility criteria, may change at any time, with or without notice, in accordance with applicable law or, if permissible under the law, at the discretion of the Company.


Long-Term Incentive (LTI):  Under the Company’s executive incentive compensation program, you will continue to be eligible to be considered for an annualized long-term incentive award with a value opportunity equivalent to approximately 300% of your base salary effective with the 2022 grant.  This long-term incentive award can be delivered to you in equity and/or cash.  The long term incentive program, including eligibility criteria, may be amended, suspended or terminated at any time, with or without notice, in accordance with applicable law and the applicable plan terms.


You will be awarded a one-time Restricted Stock Units (RSU) grant with a value of $1,500,000.  This award will be granted on March 1,2022.  The award will be converted to Restricted Stock Units based on the fair market value (FMV) as of the day of the grant and will vest 100% on the third anniversary of the grant, subject to your continued employment  with the Company.  


You will continue to receive an annual executive benefit allowance in the amount $65,000 which will be paid in semi-monthly installments with your normal payroll run. 




Congratulations on your new role.  If you have any questions, please let me know.


Please sign and date this offer letter below and return it to LeeAnn Prussak in Corporate Human Resources.


Sincerely,







Exhibit 10.3





/s/ Mitch Butier


Mitch Butier
Chairman and CEO


cc: Deena Baker-Nel






Accepted by:  Deon Stander






Date: March 1, 2022
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals. 

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number:

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/20/2018 3:19:28 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

JOHNS. HOOKS AND HIS WIFE, 

NATASHA R. HOOKS 

NO. 2022 CW 1207 

VERSUS 

GRANITE STATE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, ALVIN & JOHN 

TRUCKING, LLC, AND SEAN 

DAVIS 

JANUARY 17, 2023 

In Re: Granite State Insurance Company and Alvin and John 

Trucking, LLC, applying for supervisory writs, 21st 

Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, No. 

20170000053. 

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. The criteria set forth in Herli tz 

Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 

396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam), are not met. 

WRC 

CHH 

Theriot, J., concurs and would deny the writ. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT 

FOR THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          89,701
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,049
<PP&E>                                           3,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                     866
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,284
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,976
<SALES>                                         10,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,468
<CGS>                                            5,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,135)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,135)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,135)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)


</TABLE>
#### In re: John COOPER; Carrie D. Boe, Petitioners.

No. 10-50941

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 9, 2010.

Nathaniel Stuart Brignon, Terry Wayne Rhoads, Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, P.C., Midland, TX, for Petitioners.

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Cooper and Carrie Boe (Petitioners) seek a writ of mandamus to vacate a district court’s order remanding a case to state court.1 In subsequent briefing to the court, however, the Petitioners have suggested that their petition has been mooted by the filing of an amended complaint in state court. The Petitioners claim that they will file a new notice of removal as a result of this pleading. Specifically, the Petitioners “respectfully suggest their Petition for Writ of Mandamus is moot, but reserve the right to re-file same should the District Court remand the ... claims pending in the underlying litigation in the future prior to a proper adjudication.” We read this representation as a request by the Petitioners to withdraw the instant petition, and we dismiss the petition on that basis. We do not address at this time whether this court otherwise lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order.2

DISMISSED.

*

 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

. *See In re Allstate Ins. Co.,*8 F.3d 219, 221 (5th Cir.1993) ("We may review a remand order on petition for writ of mandamus ... provided that it was entered on grounds not authorized by [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c).”). *But see Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*517 U.S. 706, 711-15, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291).

2

. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) ("An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise ....”); *see also Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc.,*-U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1862, 1865-66, 173 L.Ed.2d 843 (2009) ("This Court has consistently held that § 1447(d) must be read *in pari materia*with § 1447(c), thus limiting the remands barred from appellate review by § 1447(d) to those that are based on a ground specified in § 1447(c).”).