alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00172

- CR

Richard Fredrick Denstitt

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§

§ From the 97th District Court

o f Montague County

(2011

- 0174M

- CR )

July 2, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
# C_2014184EN.01002202.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-500/12) (1)

1

2014/C 184/30

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
§ 56.50-25 Safety and relief valve escape piping. ( a ) Escape piping from safety valves must have an area of not less than that of the combined areas of the outlets of all valves discharging thereto and must be led as near vertically as practicable to the atmosphere.
( b ) Expansion joints or flexible pipe connections must be fitted in escape piping. The piping must be adequately supported so that no stress is transmitted to the safety valve body.
( c ) Safety or relief valve discharges, when permitted to terminate in the machinery space, must be led below the floorplates or to a remote position.
( d ) The back pressure effect of the escape piping on the operation of the relief device must be considered.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18843, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 77-140, 54 FR 40608, Oct. 2, 1989; CGD 95-012, 60 FR 48050, Sept. 18, 1995]
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.  20549

FORM 10-QSB/A

X  Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 1995

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from __________ to ___________

Commission File Number 0-11038

BOATRACS, INC.
(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)

	California                                    33-0644381
(State or other jurisdiction of          (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 incorporation or organization)

6440 Lusk Blvd., Suite D201, San Diego, CA 92121
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) 

(619) 587-1981
(Issuer's telephone number)

Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by 
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months 
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such 
reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the 
past 90 days.  Yes  X    No  __

APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS       

Check whether the registrant filed all documents and reports required to be 
filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act after the distribution 
of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.  Yes  X    No  __

		APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE FILERS

State the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of 
common equity, as of the latest practicable date:  12,577,710 shares of 
common stock as of November 1, 1995. 

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (check one):  Yes  __    No  X






				SIGNATURES


In accordance with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 
the registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the 
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


						BOATRACS, Inc.
						Registrant


January 3, 1996                         Michael Silverman
_______________                         _____________________________
Date                                    Michael Silverman
					Chief Executive Officer


January 3, 1996                         Annette Friskopp
_______________                         _____________________________
Date                                    Annette Friskopp        
					Chief Operating Officer


January 3, 1996                         Dale Fisher
_______________                         _____________________________
Date                                    Dale Fisher
					Chief Financial Officer
From: Hunt, Tim [Tim_Hunt@afandpa.org]

Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:12 AM

To: schrock.bill@epa.gov; Hanks, Katie P.

Cc: John Pinkerton

Subject: P&P survey input

Attachments: RE: Survey

‐ CEMS Spreadsheet; PP survey_updated 10_1_2010

‐ industry comments 10

‐ 29

‐ 10.xls

Bill and Katie,

Here are our collective comments on the draft survey highlighted to stand out. I am also resending the

e

‐ mail that John sent to Katie on the CEMS spreadsheet. Here is my summary of action items from

yesterday’s call. Hopefully it is complete. Thanks again for taking the time to work through these

complex issues. Action items:

1. Bill and Tim set up call with final draft late next week

2. AF&PA and NCASI share comments on draft survey by COB Friday

‐ DONE

3. Get latest NEI data as updated from EPA

– will help understand source

‐ risk

combinations; get in usable format is possible with HEM outputs in Excel

format from spring modeling

4. NCASI developing paper machine defaults from sampled mills for flow rates, #

vents, temperatures; also developing defaults for wastewater treatment focused

on ASB

5. EPA indicate if acute affects are risk drivers, otherwise 10X adjustment may not

matter in policy considerations

6. EPA share any PBT modeling that might indicate concern

7. AF&PA and NCASI willing to work with EPA to help review data quality of NEI

and modeling flagging potential problems

Timothy Hunt

Senior Director, Air Quality Programs

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION

1111 19th St NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036

tim_hunt@afandpa.org

202.463.2588 w

202.463.2787 f

www.afandpa.org
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of MCF Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, D. Jonathan Merriman and John D. Hiestand, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.





February 14, 2005



| |                                                          
| | ---------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/D. JONATHANMERRIMAN                                   
| | D. Jonathan Merriman
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
| |                                                          
| | /s/JOHND. HIESTAND                                       
| | John D. Hiestand
Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent,

v. Criminal Case No. 15-20487 

Jabron Thomas, Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendant/Petitioner.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL

In this criminal action, a jury convicted Defendant Jabron Thomas of one count of armed

bank robbery, one count of using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and one count of being

a felon-in-possession of a firearm. (ECF No. 65). On May 11, 2019, the Court sentenced Defendant

to a total term of imprisonment of 180 months. (ECF No. 90). Defendant filed a direct appeal.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated Defendant’s

felon-in-possession conviction, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support that charge. 

(ECF No. 97). On remand, this Court re-sentenced Defendant to a total term of imprisonment of 162

months. (ECF No. 105). 

Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion seeking to vacate his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. This Court denied that motion in an Opinion and Order issued on November 19, 2019, and

declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 116).

On August 20, 2020, Defendant filed a pro se motion asking this Court to appoint counsel

for him, asserting that needs the assistance of counsel to explore other means of challenging his

convictions. (ECF No. 119). The Government filed a response in opposition to this motion on 

1

Case 2:15-cr-20487-SFC-EAS ECF No. 122, PageID.1662 Filed 01/11/21 Page 1 of 2
November 17, 2020. (ECF No. 121).

Defendant has no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in bringing a collateral

challenge to his convictions. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). The “right to

appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further.” Id. Nevertheless, this Court

has the discretion to appoint counsel if the circumstances warrant it.

Having reviewed Defendant’s motion, and the Government’s response brief in opposition

to it, the Court concludes that the appointment of counsel is not warranted. As such, the Court

ORDERS that Defendant’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: January 11, 2021

2

Case 2:15-cr-20487-SFC-EAS ECF No. 122, PageID.1663 Filed 01/11/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 54.15-3 Definitions (modifies appendix 3).

Definitions applicable to this subpart are in § 52.01-3 of this subchapter.

[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18828, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65170, Oct. 31, 2008]
EX-10.10



 Exhibit 10.10 
 FIFTH AMENDMENT 
 OF THE AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 

2005 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT of the Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2005 Stock Option Plan is dated as of September 16, 2013. 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted and the stockholders of the Company have approved the Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2005 Stock
Option Plan, as previously amended (collectively, the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it
to be in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan as more particularly set forth below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan
shall be amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	The first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof: 


Subject to adjustment as provided in Paragraph 9 below, the maximum number of shares of Stock which may be issued pursuant
to Options and awards of restricted stock granted under the Plan shall be eighteen million, eight hundred eighty-one thousand, one hundred thirty-seven (18,881,137) shares. 

 

	 	2.	The Company shall be authorized to make awards of stock pursuant to the Plan. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned representative of the Company certifies that the foregoing Fifth Amendment of the Plan was duly adopted by the Board of Directors. 

 

			
	AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Vicente Anido, Jr., PhD
		 	Name: Vicente Anido, Jr., PhD
		 	Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending May 16, 2009

|Filer                             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                              
|--------------------------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|CAPITAL CITY BANK                 | * Branch       | Capital City Bank, Tallahassee, Florida, to establish a branch located at 1417 N. Main Street, Gainesville, Florida.                                                               | Newspaper:05/27/2009Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                        | 05/27/2009    
|Federal Register:                 | Not applicable
|THREE SHORES BANCORPORATION, INC. | * 3A1          | Three Shores Bancorporation, Inc., to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding shares of Seaside National Bank & Trust, both of Orlando, Florida. | Newspaper:05/30/2009Federal Register:06/12/2009    
|Newspaper:                        | 05/30/2009    
|Federal Register:                 | 06/12/2009    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1478. RODERICK HARVEY v. THE STATE.

The trial court revoked the balance of Roderick Harvey’s probation for

commission of a new felony offense. Harvey’s counsel filed a motion for new trial,

which the trial court denied. Harvey filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s

order. We, however, lack jurisdiction. 

An application for discretionary appeal is required to appeal a probation

revocation case. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5); Todd v. State, 236 Ga. App. 757 (513 SE2d

287) (1999); Wells v. State, 236 Ga. App. 607, 608 (512 SE2d 711) (1999) (denial of

motion for new trial in a probation revocation case does not change the obligation to

follow discretionary appeal procedures). Harvey’s failure to comply with the

discretionary appeal requirements deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this

appeal. Accordingly, Harvey’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

May 02, 2017

05/02/2017
#### § 30.10-48 Oil fuel—TB/ALL.

The term *oil fuel* means oil used as fuel for machinery in the vessel in which it is carried.

[CGD 74-127, 41 FR 3843, Jan. 26, 1976]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                <C>               <C>              <C>    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS              RESTATED        RESTATED
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998      DEC-31-1997     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1998      SEP-30-1997     SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                55,870           64,346          41,461
<SECURITIES>                               0                0               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        371,859          376,657         308,638
<ALLOWANCES>                           4,353            4,302           4,580
<INVENTORY>                                0                0               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     430,403          444,161         350,952
<PP&E>                               140,083          115,156         109,845
<DEPRECIATION>                        66,392           55,703          49,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       652,763          643,569         519,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                305,456          319,888         259,552
<BONDS>                               35,910           32,914           8,790
<COMMON>                                 350              346             341
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0                0               0
<PREFERRED>                                0                0               0
<OTHER-SE>                           358,408          310,094         263,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         652,763          643,569         519,553
<SALES>                                    0                0               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,123,831        1,133,151         956,375
<CGS>                                      0                0               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        759,050          773,450         645,385
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     200,959          196,521         169,458
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       1,011              805             912
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,046            1,089           3,367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       57,828           55,820          42,851
<INCOME-TAX>                          21,427           20,876          16,369  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   36,401           34,944          26,482
<DISCONTINUED>                             0                0               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0                0               0
<CHANGES>                                  0                0               0
<NET-INCOME>                          36,401           34,944          26,482
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           1.05             1.02             .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                           1.04             1.00             .81
        

</TABLE>
#### In re Disqualification of Whitmore. The State ex rel. O’Connor *v.*Davis et al.

[Cite as *In re Disqualification of Whitmore*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1231.]

(No. 98-AP-093

Decided September 15, 1998.)

Moyer, C.J.

This affidavit of disqualification filed by defendant Tim Davis seeks the disqualification of Judge Beth Whitmore from further proceedings regarding the above-captioned case. The plaintiff in the underlying case is the elected Prosecuting Attorney for Summit County.

Affiant contends that Judge Whitmore should be disqualified from the underlying case because, until recently, she was represented by the plaintiff in an unrelated mandamus action that recently was decided by the Supreme Court. See *State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Whitmore*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 61, 697 N.E.2d 640. This representation and Judge Whitmore’s failure to reveal it during earlier proceedings in this matter causes affiant to question Judge Whitmore’s impartiality and creates an appearance of impropriety that mandates her disqualification.

While a judge must recuse himself or herself from a pending action where an attorney in that action is representing the judge in another proceeding, *In re Disqualification of Badger*(1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 604, 546 N.E.2d 929, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has modified this rule as it applies to prosecuting attorneys and the Attorney General, who are statutorily required to represent judges in their official capacity. Board Advisory Opinion 89-034 (Nov. 2, 1989), states that a judge who is being represented by the *1232prosecuting attorney or Attorney General is required to recuse himself or herself from a pending case only where the attorney who is representing the judge also is appearing before the judge on behalf of another party. *In re Disqualification of DeWeese*(1994), 74 Ohio St.3d 1256, 657 N.E.2d 1357; and *In re Disqualification of Spicer*(Aug. 1, 1997), No. 97-AP-087, unreported.

Here, the materials submitted by the parties indicate that at no time did Prosecutor O’Connor represent Judge Whitmore in the mandamus action. Rather, the case was assigned to an assistant prosecuting attorney who entered an appearance on behalf of Judge Whitmore and filed all briefs and pleadings on behalf of the judge in that action. Accordingly, Advisory Opinion 89-034 and the cases cited above do not mandate Judge Whitmore’s disqualification from the underlying declaratory judgment action.

For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken and is denied. The case shall proceed before Judge Whitmore.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.18(b)


                                FIRST AMENDMENT
                                      TO
                         LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
                                      OF
                      EINSTEIN/NOAH BAGEL PARTNERS, L.P.


     This First Amendment (the "Amendment") to the Limited Partnership Agreement
of Einstein/Noah Bagel Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") is dated March 25,
1998.

Recitals

     WHEREAS, the Partnership was formed in December 1997, at which time its
partners entered into a limited partnership agreement dated as of December 5,
1997 (the "Partnership Agreement").

     WHEREAS, the Partnership Agreement provides that the Partnership shall
continue until December 31, 2022; and

     WHEREAS, a majority in interest of the partners of the Partnership desire
to extend the term of the Partnership to December 31, 2033.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Partnership Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

     1.  Amendment of Partnership Agreement.  Section 3.1 of the Partnership
         ----------------------------------
Agreement is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows:

               "Section 3.1  Term of Partnership.  The term of the Partnership
                             -------------------
          shall continue until December 31, 2033, unless the Partnership is
          earlier dissolved in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement
          or the Act."

     2.  Continuing Effect of Partnership Agreement.  Except as provided herein,
         ------------------------------------------
all the terms and provisions of the Partnership Agreement shall remain unchanged
and in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed and delivered by
partners owning a majority in interest of the partnership interests of the
Partnership.


                                 EINSTEIN/NOAH BAGEL CORP.



                                 By: /s/ Paul A. Strasen
                                     ---------------------
                                     Paul A. Strasen
                                     Senior Vice President