alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

October 13, 2015

Hon. Anne Lorentzen

District Clerk

901 Leopard, Suite 313

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00061

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13

- CR

- 1257

- A

Style: The State of Texas v. David Alvarez

Pursuant t o T EX 

### . R. A PP 

### . P. 34.6(g)(2), we are returning the original exhibit

( State's Exhibit # 1 ) filed in the above

- referenced cause. [Exhibit will be mailed

separately ].

Please sign the attached acknowledgment of receipt of these exhibits and submit

through the TAMES Records Submission Portal (RSP ) as soon as possible.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

cc: Hon. A. Cliff Gordon (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

Hon. Scott M. Ellison (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

Hon. Mark Skurka (DELI VERED VIA E

- MAIL)

RECEIPT

Receipt of the above

- referenced exhibits is hereby acknowledged by me on this the

_ _ _ _ __ d ay of _______________________, 20____.

_______ _____ _________________ Signature
No. 62866.

#### J. J. Hayes Company *v.*United States,

protest 58/6326 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2259

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. James Edward Kral, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 13, 2009 Filed: May 27, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James Kral appeals the 12-month sentence the district court 1 imposed after he violated the conditions of his supervised release. We affirm. Although the district court did not make a mechanical recitation of the section 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and did not provi de an expansive explanation of the sentence imposed, see United States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (“A-2- district court need not mechanically list every § 3353(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised releas e.”), the proceedings were procedurally adequate, seeUnited States v. Petreikis , 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (acknowledging that revocation senten ce must be procedurally sound). The district court was well aware of Kral’s viol ations of his supervised release conditions which led to an earlier revocation sentence of six months confinement. After his release from that revocation sentence, Kral continued to refuse to abide by the supervised release conditions. At the second revocation h earing which resulted in the sentence being appealed here, the court pr ovided Kral several opportunities to agree to abide by the supervised release conditions and not face additional incarceration, and Kral rejected those opportunities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (factor to be considered includes “the history and charact eristics of the defendant”); id. § 3583(e) (permitting imposition of revocation sentence after consid eration of certain § 3553(a) factors).
We further conclude that Kral’s 12- month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
# Official Journal L 130/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 130 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6019 May 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 130

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6019 May 2017

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<PAGE>   1
                                    EXHIBIT 5

                                                                 January 9, 1998


New Mexico and Arizona Land Company
3033 North 44th Street, Suite 270
Phoenix, AZ 85018-7228

        RE: NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA LAND COMPANY 1997 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as counsel to New Mexico and Arizona Land Company, an
Arizona corporation (the "Company"), in connection with its Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement") filed under the Securities
Act of 1933, relating to the registration of 500,000 shares of its Common Stock,
no par value (the "Shares"), issuable pursuant to the Company's New Mexico and
Arizona Land Company 1997 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan").

         Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that:

         1        The Company has been duly organized and is validly existing as
                  a corporation under the laws of the State of Arizona.

         2        The Shares, when issued and sold in accordance with the terms
                  of the Plan, will be validly issued, fully paid, and
                  nonassessable.

         In rendering this opinion, we have reviewed and relied upon such
documents and records of the Company as we have deemed necessary and have
assumed the following:

         (i)      the genuineness of all signatures and the authenticity of
                  documents submitted to us as originals, and the conformity to
                  originals of all documents submitted to us as copies;

         (ii)     the accuracy, completeness, and genuineness of all
                  representations and certifications with respect to factual
                  matters, made to us by officers of the Company and public
                  officials; and

         (iii)    the accuracy and completeness of Company records.

              The opinions expressed herein are limited solely to the laws of
     the State of Arizona. We express no opinion on the laws of any other
     jurisdiction or the applicability or effect of any such laws or principles.

              The opinions expressed herein are based upon the law and other
     matters in effect on the date hereof, we assume no obligation to revise or
     supplement this opinion should such law be changed by legislative action,
     judicial decision or otherwise, or should any facts or other matters upon
     which we have relied be changed.

              We hereby consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                         Very truly yours,

                                         SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
J-A06029-18

2018 PA Super 335

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

IN RE: J.C.

APPEAL OF: J.C.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1391 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order July 5, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Juvenile Division at

No(s): CP-02-JV-0001886-2011

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E, SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* DISSENTING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED DECEMBER 10, 2018

In this appeal, Appellant asks this Court to determine whether Act 21

constitutes punishment under Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189

(Pa. 2017) and Commonwealth v. Butler, 173 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super.

2017). Appellant’s Supplemental Brief at 5. As noted by the Majority,

another panel of this Court recently examined this exact issue in In re H.R., ___ A.3d ___, 2018 WL 4519816 (Pa. Super. filed Sept. 21, 2018).1

In

H.R., this Court held that Act 21 did not constitute punishment, even after

Muniz and Butler. Id. at *5. In doing so, we found Muniz and Butler

distinguishable because SORNA was found to be a punitive statute, whereas

1 Cf. Appellant’s Supplemental Brief at 5 (“Does 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403 (“Act

21”) constitute punishment as determined by a Muniz-Butler analysis.”)

with H.R., 2018 WL 4519816, at *2 (citation omitted) (“Is Act 21 punitive,

such that its retroactive application to [Appellant] and its mechanism for

determining whether an individual is a sexually violent delinquent child are

unconstitutional under [Muniz ] and [Butler ]?”).
J-A06029-18

- 2 -

under In re S.A., 925 A.2d 838 (Pa. Super. 2007), our Court previously

determined that Act 21 was non-punitive. H.R., 2018 WL 4519816, at *3-4.

“It is beyond the power of a Superior Court panel to overrule a prior

decision of the Superior Court, except in circumstances where intervening

authority by our Supreme Court calls into question a previous decision of

this Court.” Commonwealth v. Pepe, 897 A.2d 463, 465 (Pa. Super.

2006) (citations omitted). Because there has been so such intervening

authority, we are bound by H.R.’s holding that Act 21 is non-punitive. See

Pepe, 897 A.2d at 465. Therefore, I would find that Appellant’s claim

regarding Act 21 fails and would proceed to address his first claim. See

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

Additionally, given the disparity in analysis and ultimate conclusions

between the H.R. Court and the Majority here as to whether Act 21 is

punitive, and because this issue is of substantial public importance, I believe

this issue should be reviewed by this Court en banc or our Supreme Court.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the
Report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the Bank) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark R. Szczepaniak,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Bank.



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2007                          
|/s/ Mark R. Szczepaniak                       
|Mark R. Szczepaniak                           
|Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31286 Summary Calendar

JAMES R. TOWNLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEVE RADER; CYNTHIA HEBERT; RICHARD STALDER; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-2021

September 30, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In his civil rights action, James R. Townley (#106693) alleged

th at defendant Cynthia Hebert had erroneously classified him as

having three felony convictions, a determination which rendered him

ineligible for parole. The Louisiana Supreme Court has held to the

contrary. S ee Townley v. Department of Pub. Saf ety and

Corrections

, 681 So. 2d 951, 952-53 (La. 1996). Because Townley’s

civil rights acti on is factually frivolous, the district court’s

order of dismissal is AFFIRMED. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

AFFIRMED.2
No. 58755.

protest 169721-K/2693 (Chicago).

#### Naumes Forwarding Service *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of peppers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *E. J. Petrosemolo Co., Inc.,*and *Parian Shipping Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 159, C. D. 1461), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
I, PAM ESTES

, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District

of the State of Texas, do hereby certify that Ron Seale, Individually and as the Representative of

the Estate of Clara Lavinia Seale, Plaintiff in the trial court secured an extension of thirty-one

(31) days in which to file Appellant’s Brief in the following numbered and entitled cause:

Ron Seale, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Clara Lavinia Seale

No. 12-15-00004-CV vs.

Horace Truett Seale and wife, Nan Seale

This certificate is made pursuant to Tex. Rev. Civ. State. Ann. art. 5069, 1.05 sec. 3(c)

(Vernon Supp. 1985) to assist the Clerk of the Trial Court in calculating the amount of postjudgment interest accrued.

WITNESS MY HAND and seal of said Court at Tyler, Texas, this 25 day of November

2015

, A.D.

Respectfully yours,

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By:

______________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 1275 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 070 - AD
December 22, 1950

No. 55031.

Suit 4635.

#### W. T. Grant Co. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1191 affirmed October 31, 1950. C. A. D. 440.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         226,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,989,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                    74,021
<INVENTORY>                                    520,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,354,382
<PP&E>                                       5,272,569
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,544,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,481,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,012,585
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,602
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,434,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,481,300
<SALES>                                        443,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,134,817
<CGS>                                          887,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,583,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (10,628)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,634,988)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,634,988)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 234 Agreed to House (ATH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 234

 Tabling the bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department 
    of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 1999

                   Agreed to pursuant to H. Res. 386

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Tabling the bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department 
    of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the enrolled copy of the bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations 
for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, shall not be 
presented to the President, to the end that the bill be, and is hereby, 
laid on the table.
            Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2023317EN.01000301.xml

| 7.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 5 September 2023

adopting the Council's position on the draft general budget of the european union for the financial year 2024

(2023/C 317/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314(3) thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Whereas:

| 1. | On 5 July 2023, the Commission submitted a proposal containing the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2024 (1), |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 5 July 2023, the Commission submitted a proposal containing the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2024 (1),

| 2. | The Council examined the Commission proposal with a view to defining a position consistent, on the revenue side, with Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom (2), and, on the expenditure side, with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 (3). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council examined the Commission proposal with a view to defining a position consistent, on the revenue side, with Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom (2), and, on the expenditure side, with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 (3).

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council’s position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2024 was adopted by the Council on 5 September 2023.

The full text (4) is available for consultation or download on the Council’s Internet: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/documents-publications/public-register/public-register-search/.

Done at Brussels, 5 September 2023.

For the Council

The President

P. NAVARRO RÍOS

---

(1)  COM(2023) 300 final.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 424, 15.12.2020, p. 1.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 11.

3

(4)  Doc. 11565/23 + ADD 1 + ADD 2.

4

---
Before the First Division,

December 19, 1950

No. 54995.

#### E. Lembeck & Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 156101-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of S. *Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.11(c)

                            SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                                INTERLAND, INC.
                              STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


         THIS AMENDMENT is made as of the 8th day of March, 2000, by
Interland, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the "Company");

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Company established the Interland, Inc. Stock Incentive
Plan (the "Plan") effective July 1, 1999 and approved by its shareholders
August 26, 1999; and

         WHEREAS, Article 13 of the Plan permits the Board of Directors of the
Company, upon receiving approval of the Shareholders, to amend the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, a First Amendment to the Plan was adopted by the Board of
Directors on December 1, 1999 increasing the total number of Shares which may
be granted or awarded under the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and Shareholders of the Company desire
to amend the Plan to further increase the total number of Shares which may be
granted or awarded under the Plan.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises,
and other good and valuable consideration, the Plan is amended as follows:

1.       Section 4.1 is hereby amended by deleting the number "4,500,000" and
replacing it with the number "7,000,000."

2. This Second Amendment shall be effective as of the date first above written.
Except as hereby amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned does hereby execute this Second
Amendment to the Plan as of the date first above written.


                                    INTERLAND, INC.

                                    By:  /s/ Kenneth Gavranovic
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Kenneth Gavranovic, President