alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jimmie Lee THORNTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2337.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Kurt Marmar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Jimmie Lee Thornton, appeals the summary denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence on the *893ground of ineffective assistance of counsel in that (1) his appointed counsel allegedly told him that in exchange for his plea of guilty, the maximum sentence he would receive would be 10 years when, in fact, he received a sentence of 13 years, and (2) his counsel failed to adequately investigate the case.

Upon receipt of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, the trial court must examine the record and if the record conclusively demonstrates that the movant is not entitled to relief, the motion may be denied without a hearing. *State v. Weeks,*166 So.2d 892 (Fla.1964); *State v. Barton,*194 So.2d 241 (Fla.1967); *Brumley v. State,*224 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Further, allegations in a motion for post conviction relief that the court appointed counsel has not investigated the case and has advised defendant to plead guilty are insufficient as a matter of law to support the charge of ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly where the record shows the guilty plea was freely and voluntarily entered. *Crusoe v. State,*183 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Brumley, *supra.*

The record reflects that both appointed counsel and the trial judge in open court and in the presence of defendant stated that in exchange for his guilty plea, defendant would be sentenced to 13 years. The trial judge then questioned the defendant as to the voluntariness of his plea and at no time did the defendant question the 13 year sentence. The record further illustrates with respect to the issue of adequate investigation, that defense counsel invoked the standard rules of discovery and had an investigator appointed. Thus, the record conclusively demonstrates that defendant is not entitled to relief.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8Nos. 333-144254, 333-144253, 333-144252, 333-85412, 333-85418, and 333-85420)pertaining to the Directors’ Stock Option Plan, Executive Long-Term StockIncentive Plan, and Employee Stock Option Plan of Monarch Casino &Resort, Inc. of our reports dated March 12, 2009, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of Monarch Casino &Resort, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofMonarch Casino & Resort, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

 
|   | /s/  Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------|---------------------------------|

 

LasVegas, NV

March 15,2010

 

----
**UNPUBLISHED** UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT **No. 07-1349**
ROBERT EMERSON LAMB, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (04:07-cv-00019-RBS) Submitted: August 10, 2007 Decided: August 20, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Emerson Lamb, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Emerson Lamb appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and dismissing it as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),(ii). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lamb v. Astrue , No. 4:07-cv-00019- RBS (E.D. Va. April 10, 2007). We deny Lamb’s pro se motion to expedite as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 31.B**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, D. Mark Leland, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of El Paso CGP Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisReport based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: November 10, 2005         /s/D. Mark Leland   D. Mark Leland   Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer(Principal Financial Officer)El Paso CGP Company
#### Clete KING v. STATE.

6 Div. 157.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 1977.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1977.

Benjamin E. Pool, Montgomery, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Ellis D. Hanan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARRIS, Judge.

This case was affirmed by this Court on May 4, 1976, without an opinion. Application for rehearing was overruled on June 1, 1976, without an opinion.

The case reached the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari and the case was remanded for this Court to consider Constitutional issues raised by appellant under the common law coram nobis or under Rule 60(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.

When the case was originally submitted to this Court we carefully searched the record for errors, including Constitutional questions, which injuriously affected the substantial rights of appellant and found none. We determined that the case did not warrant a formal opinion.

The Rules of Civil Procedure have no application in criminal proceedings. See the Committee’s Comments following Rule 1 and *Burns v. State,*57 Ala.App. 662, 327 So.2d 920.

The common law writ of error is still a part of our criminal system of justice and is constantly resorted to in proper cases..

At the coram nobis hearing Mr. Robert L. Petrey, the loan officer at the First National Bank of Montgomery who handled the loan transaction with Mr. King, testified that “Based upon the information that I have from the First National Bank I was .mistaken when I testified that I issued a check to Mr. King in the afternoon. The records indicate that the check was issued in the morning, the date the loan was made. *621And as far as the serial number on the automobile is concerned I cannot testify whether it was given to me by Cíete King or by Willie Smith, who was an officer with the bank at that time.”

Mr. Petrey further stated that he testified to what he believed to be the truth at the time of Mr. King’s original trial.

In denying the writ the Court stated that appellant had ample opportunity to have the bank records available at his original trial and was *negligent*in not' doing so.

There is no allegation in the petition and, of course, no proof that the State *knowingly used perjured testimony to*convict appellant on the original trial.

In *Ex parte Brannan,*41 Ala.App. 500, 139 So.2d 349 and *Horsley v. State,*42 Ala. App. 567, 172 So.2d 56, this Court held that to obtain coram nobis relief from a conviction on the ground of perjured testimony the testimony must be shown to have been knowingly used by the prosecution and the convict must not have been negligent.

The fact that a witness gave contradictory testimony does not establish that a defendant was convicted on false or perjured testimony. *Echols v. State,*276 Ala. 489, 164 So.2d 486.

It is our considered judgment that the trial court correctly denied the petition for writ of error coram nobis and the case is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Rouge Resources Ltd. on
Amendment No. 1 to Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.

Date: February 15,  2011

ROUGE RESOURCES LTD.

/s/ Darcy Krell
------------------------------------Darcy Krell, Secretary and Chief
Financial Officer

---
Company
    State of OrganizationOtter Tail Power Company
    
    MinnesotaOtter Tail Energy Services Company, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaOverland Mechanical Services, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaGreen Hills Energy, LLC
    
    MinnesotaSheridan Ridge I, LLC
    
    MinnesotaSheridan Ridge II, LLC
    
    MinnesotaOtter Tail Assurance Limited
    
    Cayman IslandsVaristar Corporation
    
    MinnesotaNorthern Pipe Products, Inc.
    
    North DakotaVinyltech Corporation
    
    ArizonaT.O. Plastics, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaDMI Industries, Inc.
    
    North DakotaDMI Canada, Inc.
    
    Ontario, CanadaDMI Equipment, LLC
    
    DelawareBTD Manufacturing, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaMiller Welding & Iron Works, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaShoreMaster, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaGalva Foam Marine Industries, Inc.
    
    MissouriShoreline Industries, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaAviva Sports, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaShoreMaster Costa Rica, Limitada
    
    Costa RicaDMS Health Technologies, Inc.
    
    North DakotaDMS Imaging, Inc.
    
    North DakotaDMS Health Technologies  Canada, Inc.
    
    North DakotaDMS Leasing Corporation*
    
    North DakotaAevenia, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaMoorhead Electric, Inc.
    
    MinnesotaFoley Company
    
    MissouriE. W. Wylie Corporation
    
    North DakotaIdaho Pacific Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareIdaho-Pacific Corporation
    
    IdahoIdaho-Pacific Colorado Corporation
    
    DelawareAWI Acquisition Company Limited
    
    Prince Edward Island, CanadaAgraWest Investments Limited
    
    Prince Edward Island, Canada
@ Eastern Federal Lands 21400 Ridgetop Circle

: cok , ree
US. Department Highway Division Sterling, VA 20166-65
of Transportation

Federal Highway
Administration

SEN’ (A ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE

MAR 15 2013 In Reply Refer to: HFPP-15

Mr. Barry Schoch, P.E.

Secretary

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
400 North Street

Harrisburg, PA 17120

Subject: _MAP-21 Access Program Programming Decisions Committee Members
Dear Mr. Schoch:

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141,
includes the establishment of the new Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). This new
program will be administered by the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Office of
Federal Lands Highway. Pennsylvania is served by the Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
(EFLHD) office in Sterling, Virginia.

A key requirement for implementing the FLAP is to coordinate the establishment of a three
member Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for programming the FLAP
funds allocated to each state. Each State level PDC consists of a representative from the Federal
Lands Highway Division office, the State Department of Transportation, and an organization or
entity that is suited to represent the local entities responsible for building, operating, or
maintaining transportation facilities that are located on, are adjacent to, or provide access to
Federal lands. Our program managers have coordinated with your department and have
identified the following positions that will fulfill the PDC requirement:

FLAP Program Manager, FHWA, EFLHD
Transportation Planner, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Executive Director, Harrisburg Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization

Additional information on the implementation of FLAP can be found on the FHWA MAP-21
website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/. If you have any questions, please contact

Mr. David Payne at 571-434-1543 or David.Payne@dot.gov, or myself at 703-404-6276
Karen.Schmidt@dot.gov.

Sincerely yours,

Lele

Karen A. Schmidt
Director, Office of Program Administration


ce:

Mr. Eugene F. Heyman III, Transportation Planner, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,
Harrisburg, PA

Ms. Renee Sigel, Division Administrator, FHWA, Pennsylvania Division Office, Harrisburg, PA

Mr. Timothy Reardon, Executive Director, Harrisburg Area Transportation Study MPO,
Harrisburg, PA
# doc.kml

# files/3d9b40fa-c674-4f0d-9c28-269b13c59e3f.png
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55263-55264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28074]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

[[Page 55264]]

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 17, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Philip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1413:
    1. Johnson International, Inc., Racine, Wisconsin; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of The Bank of Fort Atkinson, Fort 
Atkinson, Wisconsin.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-2171:
    1. Community First Bankshares, Inc., Fargo, North Dakota; to 
acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Community First National 
Bank, Globe, Arizona.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 17, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-28074 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

)

MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0140 (EGS)

)

HARRELL WATTS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 16, 2010, defendants Janine Shields, Kenneth Daugherty and Sandra Elliot,

employees of the Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) and sued in their individual

capacities, filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint or, in the alternative,

for change of venue [Dkt. #99]. Frederick Lawrence, Rhonda Allen and George Green, all

current or former CCA employees, joined in this motion in all respects. On September 10, 2010,

the Court issued an Order which, among other matters, directed plaintiff to file his opposition or

other response to the CCA defendants’ motion not later than October 15, 2010. Plaintiff filed a

notice of interlocutory appeal challenging this and certain other Orders. After the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal, on June

21, 2011, the Court issued a minute order setting July 22, 2011 as the new deadline for plaintiff’s

opposition to the CCA defendants’ motion. Plaintiff was advised that the Court would grant

defendants’ motion as conceded if he did not file a timely opposition. At plaintiff’s request and

for good cause shown, by minute order on July 21, 2001, the Court extended plaintiff’s deadline

1
to August 22, 2011. To date, plaintiff neither has filed an opposition nor has requested

additional time to do so. 

The Court treats the CCA defendants’ motion to dismiss as conceded. With the

resolution of the CCA defendants’ dispositive motion, no other parties or claims remain, and this

civil action will be dismissed.

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Signed: EMMET G. SULLIVAN

United States District Judge

Dated: September 9, 2011

2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.Z


                           THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
               HUFFY CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL/EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN


         WHEREAS, Huffy Corporation (the "Sponsor") maintains the Huffy
Corporation Supplemental/Excess Benefit Plan (the "Plan") effective June 1,
1988; and

         WHEREAS, the Sponsor desires to amend the Plan;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Sponsor adopts the following amendment to the Plan
effective as of May 1, 2002:

I.   Exhibit C to the Plan shall be amended by deleting the table at the end of
     the Exhibit, and by restating the fourth paragraph thereof in its entirety
     to read as follows:

            Finally, provided Graber remains continuously employed past
            his third anniversary date of employment by the Employer,
            Graber may then elect to retire, in his sole discretion, in
            accordance with the Retirement Plan's terms.

II.  In all other respects, the Plan shall remain unchanged.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor has caused this instrument to be
executed as of this 10th day of May, 2002.

                                               HUFFY CORPORATION


                                               By: /s/ Nancy A. Michaud
                                                   ----------------------------

                                               Title: Vice President - General
                                                      Counsel and Secretary





789022.01
#### CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents.

No. 43860.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 26, 1973.

Petition denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
No. 9511.

#### Ellis et al., Partners, *v.*The Champion Iron Co. et al.

(Decided January 29, 1907.)

Error to Circuit Court of Washington County.

*Mr. Louis J. Dolle; Mr. J. C. Brencm*and *Mr. Constant Southworth,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. A. D. Follett; Mr. George E. Crane*and *Mr. W. H.*Sheldon, prosecuting attorney, for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.