alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

From: Murphyvr1 @aol.com 


Sent:' .:c.-Monday, February 15,20102:15 PM 


To: .;, ":1": ," D'evany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 


Subject: ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE - PLATTSBURGH, N.Y. 
 .. " .. "', ...; t 

,,' : ." . 

.,',." , 

It is myopiflion that the recommendation to approve Colgan Air as the area's EAS provider is NOT in 

the best interests of the public and should be reconsidered. 

It is apparent, at this particular time, that Cape Air is the provider who can continue to provide 

satisfactory service at affordable rates and more 'flights for the area's needs. 

1
SCWC-18-0000894

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

________________________________________________________________ 

STATE OF HAWAIʻI,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KEONI JAENTSCH, also known as Keone Jaentsch,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000894; FC-CR No. 1FC161000066)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTIORARI PROCEEDING

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., 

and Circuit Judge Kawamura, assigned by reason of vacancy)

The court having given further consideration to the 

record and motions in the instant case, it appears that the writ 

of certiorari herein was improvidently granted. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this certiorari proceeding 

is dismissed. This dismissal is without prejudice to a 

subsequent Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40 petition on 

the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, January 5, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Shirley M. Kawamura

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000894

05-JAN-2021

09:07 AM

Dkt. 7 ODSAC
Unassociated Document


    M
LINE HOLDINGS, INC.


    


    


    April 20,
2010

    


    


    Money
Line Capital, Inc.

    Jitu
Banker, President

    17702
Mitchell North, Suite 201

    Irvine,
CA  92614

    


    


    Gentlemen:

    


    This letter is an amendment to that
certain Letter of Intent dated June 30, 2009 by and between M Line Holdings,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Money Line Capital, Inc., a
California corporation (referred to herein as “MLC,” “you,” or “your”), as
amended on November 5, 2009.  This amendment is necessary due to the
estimated time it will take to complete the audits of MLC and its subsidiaries,
which are necessary in order to consummate the Transaction.  As a
result, we recommend the timeline for the valuation and Closing of the
Transaction be pushed back as set forth in this letter amendment.

    


    1.           Page
1, paragraph No. 1, will be restated in it’s entirely as follows:

    


    “1.           MLC
and the Company will enter into a definitive Share Exchange Agreement on or
about Friday, June 4, 2010 (the “Agreement”), and the transaction will close
(the “Closing”) on or around Wednesday, June 30, 2010.”

    


    2.           Page
1, paragraph No. 2, will be restated in it’s entirely as follows:

    


    “2.           At
the Closing, it is anticipated that MLC’s shareholders will exchange their
entire interest in MLC for a number of newly issued shares of the Company to be
determined and agreed by the parties.  The particulars of the exchange
will be based on the fair market value of the Company’s common stock prior to
the date of the Closing and the value of MLC as determined by a third-party
valuation to be completed on or around Friday, May 28, 2010.”

    


    


    
      
         

      

      
        Page 1 of
2

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    If this
letter amendment accurately reflects our understanding, please so indicate by
signing the original and duplicate of this letter, and returning a fully
executed copy to me, so that we can promptly commence work on the formal
documents relating to the Transaction.

    


    


    Very truly yours,

    


    


    M Line Holdings, Inc.,

    a Nevada corporation

    


    


    


                    
/s/ George
Colin                                                      

    By:           George
Colin

    Its:           President

    


    


    Accepted
and agreed to:

    


    Money
Line Capital, Inc.,

    a
California corporation

    


    


                    
/s/ Jitu
Banker                                                      

    By:           Jitu
Banker

    Its:           President

    Dated:    
April 20, 2010

    
 

     

     

    Page 2 of
2
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00232

- CR

Karrington McKinley Braziel

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 297th District Court

o f Tarrant County (1323802R )

August 7 , 2014

P er C uriam

(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

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 10.21


 


April 30, 2008


 


James
M. Tholey


698
Longview Drive


Huntingdon
Valley, PA 19006


 


Dear
Jim,


 


The
purpose of this letter is to outline the recent change in your title and Sabre’s
commitment to provide certain stock grants, options and compensation once these
programs are fully developed.  All former
agreements are still in place


 


Effective
March 10, 2008, your title was changed to Chief Financial Officer and
Executive Vice President Administration. You will continue to report directly
to me.  Your annualized base pay remains
at $275,000 or $5288.47 per week.


 


Reporting
to you in your new position are:


 


·                  Doug Henry, VP & GM SDS


·                  David Peters, Vice President Finance


·                  Eric Letsche, Corporate Controller


·                  Tim Russell, Director IT


·                  RuthAnn Stewart, Corporate Finance Director


·                  Stan Racis, Corporate Director Business
Analysis


·                  Genie Loftin, Finance Director CellXion


·                  Ben Hart, Finance Director, STS


·                  Carol Nelson, Finance Director, STP


·                  Corporate Director Human Resources – position
currently open


 


Once
an annual incentive bonus plan is developed for the senior management group,
you will be eligible to participate in that program.


 


It
is Sabre’s intent to make available to you 10,000 stock option shares at an
option price of $32.86 per share. You are 20% vested in the stock options as of
your date of hire, February 28, 2008. 
You will vest in an additional 20% per year on each anniversary of your
date of hire.


 


In
addition you will receive a stock grant of 11,000 shares for which there will
be tax liabilities.  We recommend you
consult with your tax advisor regarding this tax issue.  The stock grant has a 5 year forfeiture requirement
which means you forfeit 20% of the total stock grant for each year prior to the
5 year time period you are no longer with the company.  These provisions are outlined in the stock grant
document which will be provided to you once the stock is available.


 


Please
let me know if you have any questions.


 


	
  Sincerely,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  James D. Mack

  	
   

  
	
  James
  D. Mack

  	
   

  
	
  CEO
  Sabre Industries, Inc.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1314 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the ‘‘Dr. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2009 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post 

Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Av6 enue in Portland, Oregon, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office’’. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 1314 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther 

5 King, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER

PURSUANTTO 18 USC. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

** **

In connection withthe report on Form 10-Q of Skajaquoda Group, inc., for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, I, Einar Agustsson, do hereby certify, pursuantto 18 USC. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)  This reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in this report fairly represents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the periodcovered by this report and results of operations of the registrant for theperiod covered by this report.

 

 

Date: July 5, 2012

 

 

/s/ Einar Agustsson

Einar Agustsson

Chief FinancialOfficer

 

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by 906 has been provided to the registrantand will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2397

BETTY SAULTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT HUTCHINSON, in his individual and official capacity; STAN CLARK, in his individual

and official capacity; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2345-3-OBD)

Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 6, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Betty Saulter, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT,

SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Betty Saulter appeals a district court order adopting a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to grant Respondents

summary judgment and dismiss her action filed pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (1994),

and her racial discrimination claim. Because Saulter did not file

objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the

district court did not err in adopting the magistrate judge's

recommendation to dismiss her claims. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp.,

109 F.3d 198 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d

91 (4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

district court. Saulter v. Hutchinson, No. CA-94-2345-3-OBD (D.S.C.

Sept. 3, 1996). 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 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Mark Gatto, Co-Chief Executive Officer, in connection with the Quarterly Report of CĪON Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Date: August 13, 2020


/s/ Mark Gatto


Mark Gatto


Co-Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)


CĪON Investment Corporation
Cite as 2014 Ark. 373

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-13-927

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLANT

V.

SHAWN TREVELL RAINER

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered September 11, 2014

APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

CHICKASAWBA DISTRICT

[NO. 47CR-2009-193]

HONORABLE JOHN N.

FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

DISSENTING OPINION ON DENIAL

OF REHEARING.

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Associate Justice

I stand by my identification of the mistakes of law and fact that I noted in my dissent. 

The gross deviation from the previously settled standard of review, the abandonment of the

most basic rules of argument preservation—that the argument be raised and ruled on by the

trial court, and the application of an apparently new doctrine that this court may deny Rule

37 relief for any reason, are egregious enough to warrant a rehearing of this case. I,

however, wish to note an additional reason why not rehearing this case is a grave mistake. 

In federal habeas corpus proceedings, our procedural default jurisprudence is granted

deference. We will likely lose that deference if federal habeas defendants successfully argue

that we do not apply our rules consistently. The majority in the case before us has clearly

deviated from the hitherto settled way in which we have procedurally limited and barred

arguments raised on appeal.
Cite as 2014 Ark. 373

First, Rainer notes in his rehearing petition, it was our settled practice to require that

specific arguments are made to the circuit court before we consider the same on appeal. He

cites as an example Walker v. State, 301 Ark. 218, 783 S.W. 2d 44 (1990), where this court

refused to consider an argument based on Arkansas Rule of Evidence 403 when the appellant

had only argued relevance to the trial court. Here, the State only argued relevance, yet the

majority—on its own initiative—stated that a relevancy argument automatically preserved

an argument based on Arkansas Rule of Evidence 405, which concerns methods of proving

character. 

Second, despite the fact that it is so well settled as to be axiomatic that we will not

consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal and that preservation of an issue

requires a contemporaneous objection and ruling by the trial court, the majority has chosen

a different path. In the case before us the State argued to exclude evidence under Rules 402

and 404, and never broached the subject of applicability of Rule 405. Accordingly, the trial

court never ruled on a Rule 405 argument. The majority’s contention that it was “readily

apparent” is simply not based on law or fact. As Rainer points out, this court is bound to

consider only the arguments actually raised to and ruled on by the trial court or risk

jeopardizing the entirety of our procedural default law and the deference its entitled to in

federal habeas because the State is getting special consideration that we have never afforded

a criminal defendant. 

HANNAH, C.J., and BAKER, J., join.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,827,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,763
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,840,158)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (114,777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (114,777)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   5,756
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (109,021)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
1

Tong, Stanley

From: Michael Laybourn <MLaybourn@aqmd.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:03 AM

To: Tong, Stanley

Cc: Virginia Lau; Law, Nicole

Subject: Charbroiler testing

Hi Everybody, 

Just wanted to pass along CE-CERT (test kitchen) has let us know their fire suppression system upgrades will delay 

testing for up to four months. Hopefully it will be less. Mike
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MIKOS ALEXANDER DUNN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2448

[ November 19, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Robert E. Belanger , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016CF003288B

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner,

Assista nt Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, C IKLIN and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
---

2013 FORM - 20F        EXHIBIT - 13.2 CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report on Form-20F for fiscal year ended June 30, 2013of Continental Energy Corporation, a British Columbia, Canada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Robert V. Rudman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1.

   The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  2.

   The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: May 13, 2014 <Signed>Robert V. RudmanCFO
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Continental Energy Corporation and will be retained by Continental Energy Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00406-CV

AREA METROPOLITAN AMBULANCE 

AUTHORITY D/B/A MEDSTAR MOBILE 

HEALTH, Appellant

V.

FREDERICK REED, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 96th District Court

of Tarrant County (096-332054-22)

March 9, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

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

was error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the trial court’s order is reversed 

and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

It is further ordered that all parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal, for 

which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00178

- CR

ANTHONY FERNANDO STRANGE, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 41833

- A

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### O R D E R Court reporter Grelyn Freeman recorded the trial court proceedings in appellate caus e number 06

- 13

- 00178

- CR, styled Anthony Fernando Strange v. The State of Texas and tried in the 188th Judicial District Court of Gregg County under trial court cause number 41833

- A. The reporter’s record was originally due September 4, 2013. Freeman filed three requests to extend the deadline for filing the reporter’s record, all of which were granted, making December 18 the most recent due date. Freeman has now filed a fourth request seeking more time to prepare the record (estimated at 500 pages) in this appeal. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establish that “trial and ap pellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.3(c). The rules further instruct that an “appellate court may enter any order necessary to ensure the timely filing of the appellate record .” Id. In furtherance of our responsibilities established by the Rules, we find we must take steps to ensure the filing of the record in this case. We overrule Freeman’s fourth request for an extension of time and order her to file the reporter’s record in cause number 06

- 13

- 00178

- CR, to be received by this Court on or before Friday, January 17, 2014. If the record is not received by January 17, we warn Freeman that we may begin contempt proceedings and order her to show cause why she should not be held i n contempt of this Cour t for failing to obey its order

.3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
Date: January 7 , 2014