alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cite as 2014 Ark. 324



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-13-476

DETRICK D. CROSTON APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion DeliveredJuly 31, 2014 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT AND PRO SE REQUEST FOR APPELLEE TO PRODUCE RECORDS [NO. 23CR-04-1061] HONORABLE MICHAEL A. MAGGIO, JUDGE APPEAL DISMISSED; REQUEST MOOT.

PER CURIAM In 2004, appellant Detrick D. Croston was found guilty by a jury in the Faulkner County Circuit Court in case no. 23CR-04-1061 of aggravated robbery and theft of property and sentenced as a habitual offender to 180 months’ imprisonment and a fine of $1000. No appeal was taken, and a pro se motion for belated appeal was denied by this court. Croston v. State , CR06-425 (Ark. May 11, 2006) (unpublished per curiam). On August 15, 2012, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis challenging the judgment. The trial court denied the petition on February 7, 2013. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from the order on March 6, 2013, and he subsequently lodged an appeal from the order in this court. He also filed the request that is now before us, asking that the State be required to produce certain records to support the claims in the State’s
brief. The appeal is dismissed as it is clear that appellant could not prevail on appeal. The request is moot. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief,Cite as 2014 Ark. 324

including a petition for writ of error coram nobis, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not succeed on appeal. Harris v. State , 2014 Ark. 671 (per curiam). The trial court in this case filed a second order on June 11, 2013, in which the court stated, Upon review of the pleadings and arguments, the Court finds that the Defendant’s coram-nobis petition should be and hereby is DENIED. Appellant appealed from the June 11, 2013 order by filing a notice of appeal on July 11, 2013, and this court affirmed the June 11, 2013 order on December 5, 2013. Croston v. State , 2013 Ark. 504 (per curiam). We held in that decision that the claims of trial error raised by appellant in the coram-nobis petition were not within the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding. The only petition for writ of error coram nobis contained in the record in this appeal and the appeal from the July 11, 2013 order is the petition filed August 15, 2012, indicating that the August 15, 2012 petition was denied twice. As this court has already considered the issues raised in the coram-nobis petition and determined that there were no grounds stated to warrant issuance of the writ, it is clear that appellant could not prevail in an appeal from the February 7, 2013 order that denied the August 15, 2012 petition. For that reason, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed; request moot.
Detrick D. Croston , pro se appellant.
Dustin McDaniel

, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman , Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
# FILED October 30, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT O

F APPEALS AT KNO XVILLE

BONNIE SUE LESCARBEAU GREENE COUNTY ) ) 03A01-9706-CV-00215 Plaintiff-Appellee ) ) ) v. ) HON. BEN K. WEXL ER, ) JUDGE ) LAWRENCE AL

FRED LESCARBE

AU, JR. )

) Defendant-Appellant ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

LAWRENCE A. L

ESCARBEAU, JR., Appe llant, Pro Se LINDA THOMAS WOOLSEY OF GREENEV ILLE FOR APPEL

LEE

O P I N I O N Goddard, P.J.

Lawrence A

lfred Lesca

rbeau, Jr., appea

ls a judgment of th

e Greene County Circuit Court which

granted his wif

e, Bonnie Sue L

escarbeau, a d

ivorce and custo

dy of their minor son with the provision that "all visitation exercised by the Defendant shall be supervised by the Plaintiff until further hearings of this Court."

Mr. Lescarb

eau insists on appe

al that he was den

ied due process b

ecause he did not receive notic

es of the various h

earings.2 One preliminary matter needs to be addressed. Counsel for Ms. L escarbeau moves that we accept her late-filed brief, even though the brief was not filed within an extension of time granted

by this Court. We

do not consider the

reason counsel a

dvances for not ti

mely filing her brie

f sufficient to wa

rrant a suspensio

n of the Rules and c

ounsel's motion to a

ccept Ms. Lescarbeau's brief is accordingly denied. Our review of the

record disclose

s that numerous ord

ers were enter

ed in connection with this case, beginning on February 10, 1995, a nd ending with the last order on August 7, 1997. We also note that several judges were involved in signing the various orders-- Judge Wilson, Judge Wexler, Judge Jenkins, and retired Judge Mahood.

Unfortunately, we cannot reach the merits of this appeal bec ause the evidence adduced below wa

s not preserved b

y a transcr

ipt or statement of

the evidence. Un

der these circumstances an appellate court must conclusively presume the evidenc e was sufficient to justify the judgment. Trane Co. v. Morrison , 566 S.W.2d 849 (Tenn.1978); Daniel v. Metropolitan Government , 696 S.W.2d 8 (Tenn.App.1985).

We do deem it appropriate to suggest that in the event the parties cannot agree, the Trial Court entertain a motion by Mr. Lescarbea u to have specific supervised visitation periods set. In co ncl usi on, we p oin t ou t th at a ward s of cus tod y are n ever fin al, and are a lwa ys subject to be chan

ged as warran

ted by chan

ging circumsta

nces. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remande

d fur such furthe

r proceedings , if any, as m ay be nece

ssary and c

ollection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Mr. Lesca rbeau.3 _______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J. CONCUR:

________________________________ Charle s D. Sus ano, Jr

., J.

________________________________ William H. In man, Sr .J.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 122.59

 122.66

 122.67

 124.09

 123.67

 123.93

 123.12

 122.96

 121.82

 121.99

 121.61

 121.38

 121.57

 121.38

 121.45

 122.01

 121.92

 122.23

 121.92

 121.79

 121.88

 121.91

 121.91

 123.75

 123.98

 123.09

 122.89

 122.59

 122.19

 121.81

 121.52

 7,607

 7,638

 7,643

 8,306

 8,106

 8,228

 7,847

 7,773

 7,265

 7,337

 7,177

 7,081

 7,160

 7,081

 7,110

 7,346

 7,307

 7,445

 7,307

 7,253

 7,291

 7,303

 7,303

 8,144

 8,252

 7,833

 7,742

 7,607

 7,427

 7,261

 7,139

STORAGE

+32

+31

+5

+663

-200

+122

-381

-74

-508

+72

-160

-96

+79

-79

+29

+236

-39

+138

-138

-54

+38

+12

+0

+841

+108

-419

-91

-135

-180

-166

-122

CHANGE

1,178

1,181

1,165

1,541

1,052

1,206

948

1,087

843

1,160

927

1,002

1,054

994

1,003

1,090

994

1,085

948

987

1,035

1,019

1,058

1,479

1,093

850

1,036

1,016

1,013

1,001

998

INFLOW

 1,077

 1,080

 1,082

 1,147

 1,093

 1,084

 1,079

 1,063

 1,039

 1,064

 933

 959

 919

 939

 892

 881

 932

 934

 937

 934

 936

 933

 978

 977

 963

 989

 1,000

 1,002

 1,017

 994

 982

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

HATCHERY

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 2

 2

 1

 1

 1

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2008 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 8, 2008

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -436 33,043 30,839 0 1,860 16

ACRE-FEET -436 65,541 61,169 0 3,689 32

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 61,169

SPILL 0

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 1,087

 3,689

 7,575

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

 25

 25

 19

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 15

 31

 35

 35

 35

 29

 22

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 17

 15

 12

 20

 20

 26

 30

 17

 548

 1,087

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET) 

TOTAL 65,945

Table 12
Exhibit 21


                           LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                        THE INTERLAKE CORPORATION
                                     
                                                              State or Country
Corporate Name                Parent Company                  of Incorporation
                                     
ARC Metals Corporation        Hoeganaes Corporation           Delaware
                                     
Arwood International, Inc.    Interlake ARD Corporation       New Jersey
                                     
Chem-tronics, Inc.            The Interlake Companies, Inc.   California
                                     
Conco-Tellus Inc.             Interlake Material
                                Handling, Inc.                Delaware
                                     
Gary Steel Supply Company     The Interlake Companies,
                                Inc.(95%)                     Illinois
                              Certain Interlake
                                Management (5%)
                                     
Hoeganaes Corporation         The Interlake Companies,
                                Inc.(80%)                     Delaware
                              Hoganas Aktiebolag (20%)
                                     
Hoeganaes Development, Inc.   Hoeganaes Corporation           Delaware
                                     
Interlake ARD Corporation     The Interlake Companies, Inc.   Delaware
                                     
Interlake Australian Mining
  Ventures, Inc.              The Interlake Companies, Inc.   Ohio

Interlake DRC Limited         The Interlake Companies, Inc.   Delaware

Interlake Foreign Sales       The Interlake Companies,
  Corporation                   Inc.(70%)                     Barbados, W.I.
                              Hoeganaes Corporation (30%)   

Interlake de Mexico,          Interlake Material Handling,
  S.A. de C.V.                  Inc.                          Mexico

Interlake Material Handling,  
  Inc.                        The Interlake Companies, Inc.   Delaware 

Interlake Newco Corporation   The Interlake Corporation       Delaware

Interlake Packaging
  Corporation                 The Interlake Companies, Inc.   Delaware

Interlake Steel Corporation   The Interlake Companies, Inc.   Arizona

Redirack, Inc.                The Interlake Companies, Inc.   Delaware

The Interlake Companies,
  Inc.                        The Interlake Corporation       Delaware
#### Luigi Carollo, by His Guardian ad Litem, Dionisio Carollo, Respondent, v. Chelsea Fibre Mills, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the ground that no distinct basis of defendant’s liability was shown. Plaintiff had been instructed to operate the machine, and how to start and stop it, and was made familiar with the use of the belt-shifting gear by which the power was applied and turned off. A part of the operator’s duties was to clear off the cogs if they became clogged by shreds of jute. He was told not to touch the gear to clean it unless the machine was at rest. With such strict caution, first to have the machine stopped before cleaning the gears, the direction or method for the operator to touch the cogs with his hands instead of using an appliance did not become a negligent one because of the possibility that some intermeddler might start up the machine while plaintiff was thus engaged. *(Ramsay*v. *Arbuckle,*147 App. Div. 685.) Jenks, P. J., Bair, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Charles J. Dolezal, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2005 of National Bancshares Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   Date: March 21, 2006     /s/ Charles J. Dolezal     Charles J. Dolezal, President and Chief Executive Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,901.32

 1,901.34

 1,901.30

 1,901.28

 1,901.33

 1,901.32

 1,901.37

 1,901.64

 1,901.37

 1,901.43

 1,901.32

 1,901.29

 1,901.26

 1,901.46

 1,901.36

 1,901.26

 1,901.20

 1,901.17

 1,901.17

 1,901.08

 1,901.17

 1,901.11

 1,901.23

 1,901.17

 1,901.09

 1,901.15

 1,901.80

 1,901.69

 1,901.22

 1,900.76

 1,900.76

 14,150

 14,165

 14,135

 14,120

 14,158

 14,150

 14,188

 14,390

 14,188

 14,233

 14,150

 14,128

 14,105

 14,255

 14,180

 14,105

 14,061

 14,038

 14,038

 13,971

 14,038

 13,993

 14,083

 14,038

 13,978

 14,023

 14,509

 14,427

 14,076

 13,734

 13,734

STORAGE

+209

+15

-30

-15

+38

-8

+38

+202

-202

+45

-83

-22

-23

+150

-75

-75

-44

-23

+0

-67

+67

-45

+90

-45

-60

+45

+486

-82

-351

-342

+0

CHANGE

406

308

285

292

319

299

319

445

235

360

295

326

324

412

299

295

331

341

370

319

388

333

345

277

270

324

550

275

123

148

301

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 50

 80

 80

 80

 69

 0

 0

 0

 0

POWER

 245

 245

 245

 245

 245

 245

 245

 288

 282

 282

 282

 282

 281

 281

 282

 278

 298

 298

 315

 298

 298

 301

 195

 165

 165

 165

 170

 181

 165

 185

 165

SPILL

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 66

 135

 135

 135

 135

OUTLETS

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 3

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

C.F.S.

 .03

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .13

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .01

 .02

 .01

 .02

 .02

 .02

 .01

 .02

 .01

 .00

 .03

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .01

 .06

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .03

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2004 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: January 13, 2005

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -207 9,914 359 2,036 7,617 7 .46

ACRE-FEET -207 19,664 712 4,038 15,108 14

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES THE CONTINUOUS FISH RELEASE OF 75 C.F.S.

(2) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM PAN AT TRINITY RIVER HATCHERY

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 712

TOTAL RIVER 19,858 19,858

 13,941

 0

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

Table 6
### SUBCHAPTER IV—ENFORCEMENT

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 103–382, title II, §212(b)(2), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3913, redesignated subchapter V of this chapter as this subchapter.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior subchapter IV, consisting of sections 1233 to 1233h, was repealed by Pub. L. 103–382, title II, §212(a)(2), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3913. See note set out under section 1232j of this title.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent 

 v. 

FREDERICK ANDREW POSTIE, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 50 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 44

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 44 appear by T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43480, Aug. 20, 2001, and T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30801-30803, May 8, 2002.

#### § 44.86 Bond.

Every person, before commencing business as an export warehouse proprietor, shall file, in connection with his application for permit, a bond, Form 2103 (5220.5), in accordance with the applicable provisions of § 44.88 and subpart F, conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of chapter 52, I.R.C., and regulations thereunder, including, but not limited to, the timely payment of taxes imposed by such chapter and penalties and interest in connection therewith for which he may become liable to the United States.

(72 Stat. 1421; 26 U.S.C. 5711)

[25 FR 4716, May 28, 1960. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, as amended by T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30801, May 8, 2002]
Onionweed is an aggressive invasive 

weed in the United States with 

significant infestations in Arizona and 

New Mexico. Onionweed findings 

have also been reported in California 

and Texas. In pastures and rangeland, 

onionweed develops populations that 

Onionweed (Asphodelus fistulosus L.)

Figure 1: Onionweed often spreads from horticultural plantings or disturbed areas 

near gravel pits, where the seeds shower down into the gravel.

WEEDS

Figure 2: Flowering occurs between late winter and early spring.

exclude grasses and desirable forage 

species. This federally regulated weed 

poses a serious environmental and 

agricultural threat. 

For more information on the APHIS 

noxious weeds program, please visit 

www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/

plant_pest_info/weeds/index.shtml. 

Description

Plant: Dark green in color and grows 

12 to 30 inches tall and 15 inches wide.
weedS

Figure 3: Seeds germinate in the late summer and 

fall.

Figure 4: The spread of onionweed is mainly 

through the dispersal of its seeds on vehicles, 

machinery, animals, and water in open channels.

Leaves: Numerous smooth, nearly 

cylindrical hollow leaves. Similar in 

appearance to onion leaves but lacks 

the onion scent and taste. The leaves 

are much shorter than the flowering 

stem and emerge from the base.

Stem: Produces one to several stiff 

upright flower stem(s) up to 2 1/2 feet 

tall and branched.

Flowers: About three-fourths of an 

inch across with six petal parts, each 

white to pink with a brown or reddish 

stripe along the center. Flowers 

alternate along the branches.

Fruits: Spherical in shape; divided 

into three segments.

Seeds: Brown or black triangular, 

one-eighth inch long, wrinkled, pitted 

and three or six per fruit.

Roots: Thickened root crowns with 

many fibrous roots and no developed 

bulb.

Origin: It is native to the 

Mediterranean region and from 

western Asia to northern India.

Habitat: Onionweed is found in 

roadsides, pastures, waste places, 

disturbed areas, grasslands, and 

suburban settings. It is drought 

resistant and prefers sandy or gravelly 

soils. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Photo credits: All photos either were taken 

by USDA employees or are part of the APHIS 

photo collection.

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Program Aid No. 2010

Issued April 2009
Exhibit 10.21


                                 FIFTH AMENDMENT
                             TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                              DATED MARCH 25, 1993



     Reference is made to the Executive  Employment  Agreement dated as of March
25, 1993, as amended on March 31, 1995, March 31, 1996, March 31, 1997 and March
31, 1998 (the  "Agreement") by and between J. Baker,  Inc. and Sherman N. Baker.
Pursuant to paragraph 19 of the  Agreement and in order to further amend certain
provisions of the Agreement, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

         1. Paragraph 3(a) of the Agreement  entitled  "Compensation"  is hereby
amended  by  deleting  the  figure  "$229,640"  in the third  line  thereof  and
inserting in its place the figure "$206,676".

         2.  Paragraph 6 of the  Agreement  is hereby  amended by  deleting  the
phrase  "ending on April 1, 1999" in the fifth line thereof and inserting in its
place the phrase "ending on April 1, 2000".

         3. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and continue
in full force and effect.



J. BAKER, INC.



By:  /s/Alan I. Weinstein                           4/7/99
     --------------------                           ------
Alan I. Weinstein                                   Date
President and
Chief Executive Officer




      /s/   Sherman N. Baker                        4/10/99                 
      ----------------------                        -------                 
Sherman N. Baker                                    Date