alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 89-09-00928-CR, styled State v. Robert James Watson, in the 2nd

25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable W.C. Kirkendall presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00468-CR

IN RE Robert James WATSON

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 12, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On July 31, 2009, relator Robert James Watson filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking

to compel the trial court to “set aside judgment and sentence in this cause and dispose of this matter

as law and justice requires in this cause.” In 1990, relator plead guilty to aggravated robbery and was

sentenced to 45 years’ confinement. Relator did not timely appeal the conviction to this court. 

Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to postconviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802

S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp.
04-09-00468-CR

-2-

2008); Bd. of Pardons &Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481,

483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that “Article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge

a final felony conviction.”). Because the reliefsought in relator’s petition relates to post-conviction

relief from an otherwise final felony conviction, we are without jurisdiction to consider his petition

for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, relator’s petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION.

 Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

No leave is required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.

Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### § 2570.130 Scope of rules.

The rules of practice set forth in this subpart are applicable to “502(c)(7) civil penalty proceedings” (as defined in § 2570.131(n) of this subpart) under section 502(c)(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (the Act). The rules of procedure for administrative hearings published by the Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges at Part 18 of this title will apply to matters arising under ERISA section 502(c)(7) except as modified by this subpart. These proceedings shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible, and the parties shall make every effort to avoid delay at each stage of the proceedings.
<PAGE>26


Exhibit 32 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financil Officer
 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Mary D. Cohron, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


By:  /s/Mary D. Cohron
            Mary D. Cohron
            Chief Executive Officer



Date:  November 14, 2003

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Bill Wright, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


By:  /s/ Bill D. Wright
             Bill D. Wright
             Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 14, 2003
                                        26


<PAGE>
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 13204 Unemployed Number in thousands 20 years and over 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU03000024Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Unemployment Lev el - 20 yrs. & over

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:07:56 PM)
#### § 2200.201 Application.

The rules in this subpart will govern proceedings before a Judge in a case chosen for Simplified Proceedings under § 2200.203.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeremy L. White, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 803]

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Lewis County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the *832second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [1]) and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 2 to 4 years and was ordered to pay $3,573.90 in restitution to the Probation Department. We agree with defendant that the amount of restitution awarded must be vacated and the matter remitted for a hearing regarding the amount of restitution. Where a defendant pleads guilty, “evidence to support the restitution amount generally can only be found in the [plea] agreement itself or the minutes of the plea allocution” *(People v Consalvo,*89 NY2d 140, 144). Here, defendant did not expressly agree to the amount of restitution at the plea allocution. Additionally, it was improper for County Court to rely exclusively on amounts recited in the presentence investigation report *(see, People v Bernier,*197 AD2d 882). The fact that defendant neither requested a hearing nor objected to the amount does not constitute waiver “because of the ‘essential nature’ of the right to be sentenced in accordance with the law” *(People v Dickson,*260 AD2d 931, 933, n, quoting *People v Fuller,*57 NY2d 152, 156).

Additionally, remittitur is required because the itemized list supplied by the victim to the Probation Department provides dollar amounts for the losses suffered by the victim, but the total amount sought is inconsistent with the total of the individual items. Thus, it is not clear from the record how the court determined the amount of restitution *(see, People v Sommer,*105 AD2d 1052, 1053). Nor is there sworn testimony sufficient to establish the amount of lost wages *(see, People v Morales,*256 AD2d 729). The court’s reliance on the victim impact statement was inappropriate because the statement was not sworn *(see, People v Welsher,*154 AD2d 915, 916, *lv denied*74 NY2d 952). Thus, we modify the judgment by vacating the amount of restitution awarded, and we remit the matter to Lewis County Court for a hearing to determine the amount of restitution. (Appeal from Judgment of Lewis County Court, Merrell, J. — Attempted Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                               BRAND SERVICES INC.

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


The undersigned directors of Brand Services, Inc. do hereby constitute and
appoint Ian R. Alexander and Jeffrey W. Peterson, or either of them, our true
and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things in our name and
behalf in our capacities as directors of Brand Services, Inc., and to execute
any and all instruments and statements for us and in our respective names in our
capacities as directors of Brand Services, Inc., which Ian R. Alexander and
Jeffrey W. Peterson, or either of them, may deem necessary or advisable to
enable Brand Services, Inc. to comply with (i) the registration requirements of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (ii) the periodic reporting requirements
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (iii) any rules, regulations of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, including specifically, but not limited to,
power and authority to sign for us or any of us, in our names and in our
capacity as directors, any and all amendments to registration statements or
reports currently on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (including
post-effective amendments) and any and all annual reports on Form 10-K
(including amendments thereto), and we do hereby ratify and confirm all that Ian
R. Alexander and Jeffrey W. Peterson, or either of them, shall do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.


name                                signature                    date


Ari Benacerraf                      s/ARI BENACERRAF             April 9, 2002

Robert Bonczek                      s/ROBERT BONCZEK             April 9, 2002

James S. Carlisle                   s/JAMES S. CARLISLE          April 9, 2002

Thompson Dean                       s/THOMPSON DEAN              April 9, 2002

Cherie C. Rice                      s/CHERIE C. RICE             April 9, 2002

Karl R. Wyss                        s/KARL R. WYSS               April 9, 2002
#### § 2204.404 Settlement.

The applicant and the Secretary may agree on a proposed settlement of the award before final action on the application, either in connection with a settlement of the underlying adversary adjudication, or after the adversary adjudication has been concluded, in accordance with the Commission's standard settlement procedures as set forth in § 2200.120 of this chapter. If a prevailing party and the Secretary agree on a proposed settlement of an award before an application has been filed, the application shall be filed with the proposed settlement. If a proposed settlement of an underlying proceeding provides that each side shall bear its own expenses and the settlement is accepted, no application may be filed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

I, Mark F. Travis, the Chief Executive Officer of Intrepid Capital Corporation
(the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:



| | 1. |  | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A Amendment No. 1 of the
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the Periodic Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: October 10, 2003

By:
    /s/ Mark F. TravisMark F. Travis, Chief Executive Officer


22
Exhibit
4.16

      Amendment Agreement
of Leasehold Right

       

      


       

      Both parties have
signed amendment agreement as below in connection with registration of
establishment of leaseholder right that had been registered as No. 66170 at the
Department of Registration, Seoul Central District Court as of Dec. 3, 2007
pursuant to agreement of establishment of leasehold right dated Dec. 1, 2007 for
the real estate mentioned at the end of this letter.

       

      = Recitals
=

       

      1. Both parties
agree to change deposit money of the leasehold right from  864,000,000
won to 552,000,000 won.

       

      
        2.
Both parties agree to change scope of the leasehold right from the entire area
of the 6th and
7th
floors and southeast side of the 8th floor
220.585 m2 to the entire
area of 7th floor
and the entire area of southeast side of the 8th floor
220.585 m2.

      

       

      
        3.
Both parties agree to change the leasehold right as above and keep other clauses
as the same as the existing agreement of establishment of the leasehold
right.

      

       

       

      In Witness Whereof,
both parties hereto have signed and caused the change agreement to be
executed.

       

      


       

      Dec. 1,
2008

       

      
        	
                Establisher
      of Leasehold Right

              	
                Han,
      Jeong-hee    (Seal)

              
	 
      	
                #117-301,
      Hyundai APT, 434, Apgujeong-dong, Kangnam-gu Seoul

              
	 
      	 
      
	
                Leaseholder

              	
                WEBZEN Inc.
      (110111-1955694)

              
	 
      	
                467-6,
      Dogok-dong, Kangnam-gu, Seoul

              
	 
      	
                Kim,
      Chang-geun/ Representative Director
(Seal)

              


      

      


       

      (Indication of Real
Estate)

       

      
        	
                1675-1/1675-2,
      Seocho-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul

              
	
                8th
      Floor Office, Reinforced Concrete Roof

              
	
                1st
      Fl. 552. 83m2,

              	
                2nd
      Fl. 522. 04m2,

              	
                3rd
      Fl. 389.36m2

              
	
                4th
      Fl. 389.36m2

              	
                5th
      Fl. 389.36m2

              	
                6th
      Fl. 389.36m2

              
	
                7th
      Fl. 389.36m2,

              	
                8th
      Fl. 389.36m2,

              	
                1st
      underground Fl. 949.64m2

              
	
                2nd
      underground Fl. 858.98m2,

              	
                3rd
      underground Fl. 397.42m2
Exhibit 32.1

     Certification of Chief Financial Officer under Section 1350


     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Visual Bible International, Inc. (the "Company")for the period
ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Date: November 24, 2004            /s/Luc Perron


                                   Luc Perron, Principal Financial
                                   Officer



     The foregoing certification accompanied the Quarterly Report on
Form 10QSB filing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is being
reproduced herein for information only.  It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Company, whether made before or after hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
[Civ. No. 2467.

Second Appellate District.

December 10, 1917.]

#### ALVINA M. MURPHY et al., Respondents, v. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (a Municipal Corporation), et al., Appellants.

Street Assessment—Opening or Street Under Act or 1903—Pro-ceedings of City Council When Conclusive.—Judgment reversed on authority of *Nutting*v. *City of Los Angeles et al., ante,*p. 519.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lewis R. Works, Judge.

The facts are the same as those stated in the opinion in *Nutting*v. *City of Los Angeles et al., ante,*p. 519.

Albert Lee Stephens, City Attorney, Charles S. Burnell, Assistant City Attorney, and Arthur M. Ellis, for Appellants.

Hanson, Hackler & Heath, for Respondents.,

*809THE COURT.

This action was tried together with No. 2391, *Nutting*v. *City of Los Angeles et al., ante,*p. 519, [170 Pac. 680], in which the decision of this court was filed *to-day;*the two cases being tried upon the same evidence. The opinion written in the Nutting ease covers all of the questions which we find it necessary to determine in this case. Upon the authority of that decision, the judgment appealed from herein is reversed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after .judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on February 7, 1918.
#### SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. WESTBROOK.

(Decided November 20, 1916.)

Appeal from Walker Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. J. Curtis.

Bankhead & Bankhead, for appellant.

Leith & Gunn, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
No. 17,479.

#### Janagin *v.*Covault, Sheriff, et al. Wilcoxon *v.*Covault, Sheriff, et al. Klugh *v.*Covault, Sheriff, et al. Barnes et al. *v.*Covault, Sheriff, et al. Vance *v.*Covault, Sheriff, et al. Davis *v.*Covault, Sheriff, et al. Lock et al. *v.*Covault, Sheriff, et al. Constant et al. *v.*Covault, Sheriff, et al. Wilson et al. *v.*Covault, Sheriff, et al.

No. 17,480.

No. 17,481.

No. 17,482.

No. 17,483.

No. 17,484.

No. 17,485.

No. 17,486.

No. 17,487.

Filed March 11, 1896.

From the Blackford Circuit Court.

*Elliott & Elliott, Gregory*<fc *Silverfmrg*and *J. N. Templar & Son,*for appellants.

Howard, J.

The questions for consideration in each of the nine preceding cases are in all respects the same as those considered in the case of *Shrack*v. *Covault, Sheriff,*144 Ind, 360. On the authority of that case, therefore, the restraining order heretofore issued by this court is dissolved, and the judgment entered in each of the foregoing cases is affirmed.
§ 2570.139 Review by the Secretary. ( a ) The Secretary may review a decision of an administrative law judge. Such a review may occur only when a party files a notice of appeal from a decision of an administrative law judge within twenty (20) days of the issuance of such decision. In all other cases, the decision of the administrative law judge shall become final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704.
( b ) A notice of appeal to the Secretary shall state with specificity the issue(s) in the decision of the administrative law judge on which the party is seeking review. Such notice of appeal must be served on all parties of record.
( c ) Upon receipt of a notice of appeal, the Secretary shall request the Chief Administrative Law Judge to submit to him or her a copy of the entire record before the administrative law judge.
#### § 1915.154 Respiratory protection.

Respiratory protection for shipyard employment is covered by 29 CFR 1910.134.
'''Ii 

### Adams. Kevin (OST)



# =- From: Sent: 

### To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Matthew Leitner <jmsairport@daktel.com> Friday, January 17, 2014 9:16 AM Adams, Kevin (OST) manager@devilslakeairport.com; Jim Boyd; Brusegaard, Tom (Hoeven); jack_huerter@heitkamp.senate.gov; Wanner, Kyle

## c.; Gibbens, Lisa; mayor@dvlnd.com; Katie Andersen; Devany, Dennis (OSn Great Lakes Schedule GLSchedule_1212014.pdf <•• 

## ~-:; 

# » High Good Morning Kevin, -. --- j

_ T' > I (;'.- 

# .~. --i(f2~~:j 0""1.'--1 .:0°::;.: 

## m~m ::o~z »--l-; 

## -loa

.. C)_.....•.

--" Pursuant to our conversation this morning, I've attached Great Lakes' new schedule for Jamestown, efl~ctiveJ~imary 21, 2014. It illustrates one round-trip flight on a Beech 1900 to and from MSP, excluding Saturdays, for atotal weekly count of sixflights (top of page). This service iswell below the requirements of our current contract and new RFP. Asyou know, SkyWest has proposed seven round-trips and our community has conveyed their emphatic support for the SkyWest proposal. My sincere hope isthat this dramatic decrease in service and reliability asdemonstrated by our present carrier will necessitate an immediate resolution, i.e. the award of our new contract to SkyWest poste-haste. I ask that you please pursue this asaggressively as possible, and assoon as possible. Thank you very much in advance and I look forward to hearing from you again soon. Importance:

Cordially, Matthew Leitner Manager, Jamestown Regional Airport Phone (701)252-6466 Fax(701)252-2919 www.flvjamestown.net

1,~". 

# :7Tt2BE1.
-- -X6- --:--M$~~---1455- -1q20- . .. . ,

......... -.-- .--..)t6S51755MSP_/ 1 ,:, ~---_. . 

## All stations please verify that your new changes are displaying properly in AIR Monday, January 20th 

## andreport any discrepancies asap. The schedule change process is amanual one, and it's much easier forour customers ifwe correct aJD'issues now raft1erthan after thecl)anges gointo effect.

. . ., &4r£ <?dc'(,J.!'17//?vL ~;d;r£ 

# ;7172:.) E 

## '

__-< 1
ALAS

AEROMAGNETIC MAP AND PROFILES OF “PAR :

oo

SHEET NUMBER 2

SEWARD, PENINSULA |

e

) ALASKA

\AREA

+

PENINSULA’
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1900.]

Smith, Swing and Giffen,JJ.

#### State ex rel. Fenner v. Hamilton Co. (Comrs.).

1. Act 94 O. L., 725, is Unconstitutional.

The act 94 O. L-, 725, authorizing the county commissioners in a county containing a city of the first grade first class to issue bonds, not exceeding SI0,000, in amount, and to levy a tax to pay the interest and to provide for payment of the principal within a period of ten years, for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and repair of any levee or bridge i'pproach used as a highway in such county, the subj'ect matter being of a general nature, is unconstitutional, as lacking uniform operation.

2. That it Does not Designate Levee or Bridge Approach Immaterial.

The fact that the law in question does not specifically point out what levee, used as a road or bridge approach, is to be improved or repaired by the money realized from a sale of the bonds is not material; the act still remains local.

*K. G. Kinkead*and *H. K. Rogers;*

Wilson, *Cosgrave & Jones.*

Injunction.

The question for determination in this case was the constitutionality of the act iound in 94 O. L., 725, authorizing the commissioners in a county containing a city oi the first grade of the first class to issue bond.» not to exceed $10,000, and to levy a tax to pay the interest and to provide for the payment of the principal of said bonds within a period of ten years, for the purpose of paying the cost and expense of the imp~ovement and repair of any levee or bridge approach used as a highway in any such county.

Swing, J.

We are unable to distinguish this case from the cases of Hixson v. Burnson, 54 Ohio St., 470; State ex rel. v. Davis, 55 Ohio St., 15, and Mott v. Hubbard, 59 Ohio St., 199, and therefore feel bound to hold the act in question unconstitutional. The fact that the law in question does not specifically point out what levee used as a road or bridge approach is to he improved or repaired by the money realized from the sale of bonds, it seems to us can make no difference.- The act still remains local, and the subject of roads and bridge approaches is a matter of a general nature, as decided by the above cases.

Injunction allowed as prayed for.