alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# In the 

# Indiana Supreme Court

Floyd TEWELL, Appellant,

v.

STATE of Indiana, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Supreme Court Cause No.
48S02-0801-PC-21

Court of Appeals Cause No.
48A02-0701-PC-118

Madison Superior Court Cause No.
48D03-0610-MI-901

PUBLISHED ORDER GRANTING TRANSFER and
ADOPTING THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

The Parole Board revoked parole for Appe llant, Floyd Tewell, thus returning him to prison to serve out a life sentence. Tewell then filed what he titled a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Treating the petition as one seeking post- conviction relief, the trial court denied relief and Tewell appealed. Rejecting Tewell’s appella te arguments, the Court of Appeals held the trial court (1) had correctly treated Tewell’s petition as a post-conviction relief petition, and (2) had properly concluded the Indiana Parole Board had not previously discharged Tewell from his
life sentence. See Tewell v. State , 876 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

The matter comes before this Court on Tewell’s pro se petition seeking transfer of jurisdiction in accordance with Appellate Rules 56(B) and 57(B)(2). The Justices have
reviewed the decision of the Cour t of Appeals and materials filed in connection with the request to transfer jurisdiction, and have discussed the matter in conference.

Being duly advised and having concluded th e Court of Appeals co rrectly decided the issues, we GRANT transfer, and ADOPT the opinion of the Court of Appeals. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(1).

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to West Publishing for publication in
the bound volumes of this Court’s decisions.

Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, this 11th day of January, 2008.

/s/ Randall T. Shepard
Chief Justice of Indiana

All Justices concur.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE





I, Harvey Beker, certify that (i) the Annual Report of Millburn Multi-Markets Fund L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.





/s/Harvey BekerHarvey BekerCo-Chief Executive OfficerMillburn Ridgefield CorporationGeneral PartnerMillburn Multi-Markets Fund L.P.March 30, 2011
No. 00-7106.

#### Armstrong *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Boardof Directors 

ARCA biopharma, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-148288, 333-131392, 333-128316, 333-126591, 333-118821, 333-112209, 333-106873, 333-103257, 333-90458, and 333-70134) on Form S-3 and theregistration statements (Nos. 333-161485, 333-146078, 333-134981, 333-126590, 333-115747, 333-108563, 333-103055, 333-101276, 333-96313, 333-91471, 333-68172, 333-68170, 333-53089, 333-53087, 333-41663, 333-39194, 333-08978, and 333-154839) onForm S-8 of ARCA biopharma, Inc. of our report dated March 4, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ARCA biopharma, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, preferredstock and stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2009, and for the period from December 17, 2001 (inception) to December 31, 2009, which report appears inthe December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of ARCA biopharma, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Boulder, Colorado 

March 4, 2010
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan 

Checklist Item #12 

Does the application include a demonstration that the proposed suspension is not projected to materially 

exceed the level necessary to avoid insolvency, including illustrations regarding the plan's solvency ratio 

and available resources? Section 4.03. 

The demonstration that the proposed suspension is not projected to materially exceed the level necessary 

to avoid insolvency, including illustrations regarding the Plan's solvency ratio and available resources is 

included in Exhibit V of the Supplemental Actuarial Information attached as Document 7.1. 

Document #12 - 1 - 

SWORCCPP-000072
#### David E. ROLLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-251.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 22, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Timothy A. FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1180.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1973.

Ronald E. Jones, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

WALDEN, Judge.

Defendant was found guilty of a narcotics violation and duly adjudged and sentenced in one of the circuit courts of this state. The contraband upon which the conviction hinged was produced per search warrant of a private dwelling issued by a municipal court.

*33The gravamen of appellant’s suggestion is that the municipality could not issue such warrant for that the charter of the municipality authorizing warrants “to obtain evidence and facts of the violation of any laws or ordinances of the city” was unconstitutional. Without detailing, the municipality had the usual catch-all proviso, which provided that the commission of state misdemeanors constituted violation of a municipal ordinance.

Appellant urges that the charter authorization was too general as concerns the search of a private dwelling when compared to the provisions of F.S. 933.18, Laws of 1971, F.S.A.

And now for our judicial consideration of the problem. We notice that the defendant did not raise the constitutionality of the special act in question in the trial court and we feel that he can not do so here, State v. McInnes, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 581, as it does not constitute such fundamental error under Rule 3.7(i), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., that we may sua sponte consider the issue. Palm Beach County v. Green, Fla.1965, 179 So.2d 356; Radford v. Town of Palm Beach Shores, Fla.App. 1972, 267 So.2d 36. We feel there has been no deprivation of process, particularly since the offense in question exactly fits the definition in Section 933.18(5), F.S. 1971, F.S.A., providing that warrants for the search of private dwellings may not be issued unless “the law relating to narcotics and drug abuse is being violated therein.” Thus, when we consider the offense and read the charter authorization in conjunction with the above mentioned statute and consider the affidavit and warrant in question, we believe that same is justified, rendering the search thereunder and resulting conviction proper. State v. Williams, Fla. App.1969, 227 So.2d 331.

Affirmed.

MAGER, J., and FERRIS, JOHN G., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Mary Ida NELLON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3315.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1971.

Mullins & Smith, by Cecil Gill Smith, Jr., Natchez, Miss., for appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, SAVOY, and MILLER, JJ-

MILLER, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the companion case of Nellon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 244 So.2d 303, (La.App. 3 Cir. 1971), in which separate judgment has been rendered by us this date, the judgment appealed in this case is affirmed. Costs of court on appeal are taxed to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Lawyer Kelly.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSRS

 

| Investment Company Act file number | 811-06671 |
|------------------------------------|-----------|

 

DWS Global High Income Fund, Inc.

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 10/31 |
|--------------------------|-------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 04/30/09 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

----
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2
2018 Annual Equity Incentive Plan


The 2018 Annual Equity Incentive Plan provides for the issuance of equity incentive awards in the form of (i) non-qualified stock options; (ii) time-based restricted stock units; and (iii) performance-based restricted stock units.


	
				
	Executive Officer
	Time-Based Restricted Stock Units 
(# shares)
	Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units 
(# shares)
	Non-Qualified Stock Options (# shares)

	Douglas C. Bryant
President and Chief Executive Officer
	13,819
	13,818
	27,637

	Michael D. Abney, Jr.
Senior Vice President, Distribution
	4,606
	4,606
	9,212

	Robert J. Bujarski
Senior Vice President, Business Development and General Counsel
	4,606
	4,606
	9,212

	Ratan S. Borkar
Senior Vice President, International Commercial Operations
	4,606
	4,606
	9,212

	Werner Kroll
Senior Vice President, Research and Development
	4,606
	4,606
	9,212

	Edward K. Russell
Senior Vice President, Global Commercial Operations
	4,606
	4,606
	9,212

	Randall J. Steward
Chief Financial Officer
	4,798
	4,798
	9,596






The vesting period for the non-qualified stock is over four years with the first 50% of such option awards vesting at the end of the second-year anniversary of the grant date and the remainder vesting 25% annually on each of the following two anniversaries thereafter.    


The vesting period for the time-based restricted stock units is 100% of such equity awards vesting at the end of the four-year anniversary of the grant date.    


The vesting for the performance based restricted stock units (PSUs) is over a three year time period and is tied to the achievement of net revenue growth targets.  If the net revenue targets are achieved, then the PSUs will vest 100% upon the third anniversary of the Equity Grant Date.  If the company has not achieved the annual net revenue growth targets at the end of the three year period, the PSUs will be canceled.  The PSUs may vest early upon early achievement of the three year net revenue growth targets.  The net revenue calculation may be adjusted for the financial impact of merger, acquisition and divestiture activities.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55424-55425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28249]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,732]


Paragon Electric Company, Two Rivers, Wisconsin; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on August 18, 1997 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on July 30, 1997 on behalf of workers at Paragon Electric 
Company of Two Rivers, Wisconsin.

[[Page 55425]]

    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 7th day of October, 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-28249 Filed 10-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
1

Filed 9/15/16 P. v. Mendoza CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTONIO MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A145296

 (San Mateo County

 Super. Ct. No. SC079697A)

Appellant and defendant Antonio Mendoza contends the abstract of judgment 

below must be corrected to reflect imposition of a 19-year prison term, rather than the 29-

year term currently stated in the abstract. The People agree. We direct the trial court to 

make the correction.

BACKGROUND

In December 2014, pursuant to an agreement, appellant pled no contest in two 

cases to two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (b))

1

and one count of soliciting another to commit murder (§ 653f, subd. (b)). He also 

admitted personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) in the two assaults, among 

other allegations. The agreement called for a 19-year prison term.

In March 2015, the trial court sentenced appellant to a 19-year prison term. The 

sentence consisted of a nine-year term for the assault in count two, plus a 10-year term 

 

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

for the section 12022.5 enhancement. The court ordered the prison terms on the other 

offenses and allegations to run concurrently.

In June 2015, an abstract of judgment was prepared that states appellant was 

sentenced to 29 years in prison, consisting of the 19-year term on count two and its 

section 12022.5 enhancement, plus ten years for the section 12022.5 enhancement on 

count three.

DISCUSSION

The parties agree the trial court sentenced appellant to a 19-year term and the 29-

year term stated in the abstract of judgment is a clerical error. This court has inherent 

power to order the correction of a clerical error in an abstract of judgment. (People v. 

Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) We will do so.

DISPOSITION

This matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to correct the abstract of 

judgment to reflect imposition of a total prison term of 19 years, consisting of a nine-year 

term on count two and a ten-year term on the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) 

enhancement attached to count two. The trial court shall forward a copy of the amended 

abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other 

respects, the judgment is affirmed.
3

SIMONS, Acting P.J.

We concur.

NEEDHAM, J.

BRUINIERS, J.

(A145296)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1530

TODD WILLIAM BACHELDOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; EDWIN D. 

HILL; ROBERT P. KLEIN; LINDSAY K. NELSON; NEAL HARRISON; 

WHITE ELECTRIC; RODGER BUILDERS, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00228-BO)

Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd William Bacheldor, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Louise Bor, 

SHERMAN DUNN COHEN LEIFER & YELLIG, PC, Washington, DC; Sarah M. 

Stephens, FOLTZ MARTIN, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, Kelly Suzanne 

Hughes, Homer Bernard Tisdale, III, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, 

SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Todd William Bacheldor appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Bacheldor v. Int’l Bhd. 

of Elec. Workers, No. 7:10-cv-00228-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 21, 2011). 

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
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1383. COREY LONGS v. THE STATE.

A jury convicted Corey Longs of theft by deception. Longs filed a motion for

new trial, which the trial court denied on June 8, 2016. Longssubsequently filed a pro

se motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied on July 19, 2016.

Thereafter, Longs filed a second pro se motion for reconsideration, which the trial

court denied on September 28, 2016. Longs then filed his notice of appeal to this

Court on November 4, 2016. We lack jurisdiction. 

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order to be

appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is

an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Rowland v. State,

264 Ga. 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). No written order appears in the record that

vacates the trial court’s June 8, 2016 order denying Longs’s motion for new trial.

Thus, Longs’s notice of appeal should have been filed within 30 days of the entry of

the June 8 order.

 A motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for filing a notice of

appeal. Cheeley-Towns v. Rapid Group, 212 Ga. App. 183 (441 SE2d 452) (1994). 

Further, the denial of a motion for reconsideration is not in itself an appealable order.

Savage v. Newsome, 173 Ga. App. 271 (326 SE2d 5) (1985). Here, Longs filed his

notice of appeal 149 days after the entry of the order denying his motion for new trial.

Therefore, his untimely appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

As Longs was both represented by counsel when the court entered its order

denying his motion for new trial and has not been afforded a direct appeal, he is

hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, supra. This

April 17, 2017
appeal has been dismissed because of your counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal. 

If you still wish to appeal, you may petition the trial court for leave to file an

out-of-time appeal. If the trial court enters an order granting your request, you will

have 30 days from the filing date of that order to file a notice of appeal referencing

your conviction. If the trial court enters an order denying your request, you will have

30 days from the filing date of that order to file a notice of appeal referencing the

denial of your request for an out-of-time appeal.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Longs as well as

to Longs’s attorney, who is also directed to send a copy to Longs.

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.

04/17/2017
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 2378

FREDDIE WAYNE HUFF, II , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; DIVISION OF STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, a principal subunit of an agency of the State of North Carolina; WILLIAM J. GREY, in his official capacity as Commanding Officer of the Division of State Highway Patrol and indiv idually; JENNIFER A. HARRIS, in her official capacity as the Director of Professional Standards for the Division of S tate Highway Patrol and individually; JOSEPH A. COTTON, in his official capacity as the Director of Internal Affairs with the Division of S tate Highway Patrol and individually, Defendants

– Appellees, and FRANK L. PERRY, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 00599

- CCE

- JEP )

Submitted : August 23, 2017 Decided: September 8, 2017

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Randolph M. James, RANDOLPH M. JAMES P.C., Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Josh Stein, North Carolina Attorney General, Tammera S. Hill, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Freddie Wayne Huff , II, appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants summary judgment on Huff’s equal protection, due process, and North Carolina wrongful discharge claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the distri ct court’s order and judgment

. See Huff v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety , No. 1:15

- cv - 00599

- CCE

- JEP ( M.D.N.C. Nov. 2, 2016 ) ; see also Engquist v. Or. Dep ’ t. of Agric. , 553 U.S. 591, 605 (2008) (holding that “ the class

- of

- one theory of equal protection

— which p resupposes that like individuals should be treated alike, and that to treat them differently is to classify them in a way that must survive at least rationality review

— is simply a poor fit in the public context”); Muchira v. Al

- Rawaf , 850 F.3d 605, 616 (4th Cir. 2017), pet. for cert. filed , No. 17

- 154 (U.S. Jul. 28, 2017) (recognizing that “ [c] onclusory allegations and speculation will not suffice” to defeat summary judgment); Huff v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub

. Safety , 782 S.E.2d 926 (N.C. Ct . App.) (holding that Huff’s “ State employment with the State Highway Patrol did not meet the statutory minimum for qualification as a career State employee ”), rev . denied, Huff v.
N

. C . Dep’ t of Pub. Safety , 793 S.E.2d 222 ( N.C. 2016)

. We dispense with or al argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-201.33 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE 

 Protocol to the Treaty of 

May 26, 1999 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and GREECE 

Signed at Washington January 18, 2006 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 GREECE 

 Mutual Legal Assistance 

Protocol to the treaty of May 26, 1999. 

Signed at Washington January 18, 2006; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 28, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-13, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-13, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; 

Exchange of Diplomatic Notes at Washington 

 September 9 and 15, 2009; 

Entered into force February 1, 2010.