alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bobby Lee BUCHANAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. C-87-336.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 18, 1988.

Bobby Lee Buchanan, pro se.

OPINION

PARKS, Judge:

Petitioner, Bobby Lee Buchanan, pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.1981, § 645, 21 O.S. Supp.1985, § 51), in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CRF-86-4366, before the Honorable Clifford E. Hopper, District Judge. The State recommended a punishment of fifteen (15) years, which the trial court imposed. Petitioner timely filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied. Petitioner has timely filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. We assume jurisdiction and reverse.

We find it unnecessary to address the facts, as we find that the trial court failed to fully advise the petitioner of the nature and consequences of his guilty plea as required by *King v. State,*553 P.2d 529, 534 (Okla.Crim.App.1976). The record shows the trial court did not advise petitioner that in pleading guilty he waived his right to confront the witnesses against him; his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination; that he was presumed innocent of the charged crime or of any lesser crime; and that the State had the burden of proving each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. *Id.*at 534-35.

On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea. Therefore, the writ of certio-rari is GRANTED, and the judgment is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

*118BRETT, P.J., concurs.

BUSSEY, J., concurs in result.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1342 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1342

 To include Idaho and Montana as affected areas for purposes of making 
 claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 
        note) based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 24, 2009

    Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Risch) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To include Idaho and Montana as affected areas for purposes of making 
 claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 
        note) based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF IDAHO AND MONTANA IN RADIATION EXPOSURE 
              COMPENSATION.

    Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon; and
            (3) by adding after subparagraph (C) the following:
                    ``(D) the State of Idaho; and
                    ``(E) the State of Montana; and''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robert E. RUSK, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION FOR the STATE OF COLORADO; Director, Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Labor, State of Colorado; Caterpillar Tractor Company; and Wausau Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. 86SC2.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

July 10, 1987.

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the Joint Motion to Remand filed in the above cause, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises,

IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED that said Motion shall be, and the same hereby is GRANTED and the above-captioned matter shall be remanded to the Colorado Court of Appeals, with further directions that the case be remanded to the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel for the State of Colorado and the Director’s office of the Division of Labor for review of the proposed settlement agreement.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5019]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, PKA and PKC Targeting 
Mechanisms.
    Date: March 14, 2012.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Carol J. Goter-Robinson, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of 
Health, Room 748, 6707 Democracy Boulevard Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 
(301) 594-7791, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d9beb6adbcababb6bbb0b7aab6b7ba99bca1adabb8f7b7b0bdbdb2f7b7b0b1f7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d0a0219081f1f020f04031e02030e2d0815191f0c43030409090643030405430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 24, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-5019 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3751

___________________________

Darnell Wesly Moon

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Federal Bureau of Prisons

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________

 Submitted: April 14, 2016

 Filed: April 28, 2016 

[Published]

____________

Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Darnell Moon, formerly a federal inmate at the United States Penitentiary at

Terre Haute, Indiana, appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal of his action

seeking relief under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. We

grant his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
While we agree that a litigant must exhaust administrative remedies before

bringing a FOIA action in federal court, see Elnashar v. United States Dep’t of Justice,

446 F.3d 792, 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is

prerequisite to bringing suit under FOIA), we conclude that because FOIA is silent as

to whether exhaustion is a pleading requirement or an affirmative defense, see 5

U.S.C. § 552, the argument of non-exhaustion is an affirmative defense rather than a

pleading requirement, see Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 919 (2007) (if an act is silent

as to whether exhaustion should be pled by plaintiff or treated as affirmative defense,

general practice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictates that exhaustion

should be treated as affirmative defense). Thus, Mr. Moon was not required to plead

exhaustion in his complaint.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.

______________________________

-2-
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 88 ) ll-K - (B ) -7 6 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:51 AM Sheet 88 of 325P. 2 

# 7

II-K-(B)-7 6
IFCA M SENSITIIVT YANALYSI S O F INTRASTAT E NATURAL GA S PRICES , INVESTMEN T PERIOD , ANDAPPLICABILIT YO F TH E FUE L US E ACT . Lette r fro

m M . Neu , EE

A t o R . Short , EPArSASD . Jul y 1 , 1981 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUNDI

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-7 6
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 24, 2010

y1117 

# Order

November 24, 2010

138943

LOREAN ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138943 COA: 283890 Wayne CC: 07-724470-NH VICTORIA AHARAUKA and DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees,

and

HARPER HOSPITAL, SINAI HOSPITAL OF GREA TER DETROIT, and SINAI GRACE HOSPITAL, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 5, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY , J., would grant leave to appeal.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 16386 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:12

- cr
- 00005

- JSM

- EAJ

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus VALENTIN DE LA CRUZ , Defendant

- Appellant.

__________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________ (July 22, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT , PRYOR and HILL , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: George Bedell , appointed counsel for Valentin de la Cruz in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,

Case: 12-16386 Date Filed: 07/22/2013 Page: 1 of 22 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that
counsel ’ s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

cou nsel ’ s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and de la Cruz ’ s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 12-16386 Date Filed: 07/22/2013 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 13.1

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 of Unilens Vision Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ending June 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alfred W. Vitale, President and Chief Executive 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 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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

Date: December 29, 2006



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/ Alfred W. Vitale             
|Alfred W. Vitale                 
|President/Chief Executive Officer



109
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  514,158                 779,075
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         63,024,164              60,834,087
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,538,322              61,613,162
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     514,158                 779,074
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  63,024,164              60,834,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,538,322              61,613,162
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0               6,989,192
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                 0               1,842,887
<COMMISSIONS>                                        0               5,406,851
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,357,688              10,384,330
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   7,357,688              10,384,330
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,357,688              10,384,330
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    24.97                   31.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    24.97                   31.67
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 26, 2020

No. 04

- 18

- 008 02

- CR & 04

- 18

- 00803

- CR

Kenton Lance LIGHT,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6330 , 6328

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, and the m otion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of March, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 21

- 00559

- CV
In re JOHN KENNETH WILSON V From the 408th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020EM502226 Honorable Nick Catoe Jr. , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 25, 2022
DI SMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION In this case, the trial court signed the judgment on November 9, 2021. Because this is a regular appeal, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on December 9, 2021

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P.
26.1

. On December 16, 2021 , appellant filed h er notice of appeal. Although appellant filed a notice of appeal within the fifteen

- day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, she did not file a motion for extension of time. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner

. See04

- 21

- 00559

- CV

- 2

- id. ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C) ; see also Hone v. Hanafin , 104 S.W.3d 884, 886

– 87 (Tex. 2003) (holding “a reasonable explanation” is any plausible statement of circumstances indicating that failure to timely file was not deliberate or inten tional but was the result of inadvertence, mistake or mischance, and that “any conduct short of deliberate or intentional noncompliance qualifies as inadvertence, mistake or mischance ”) (citation omitted)

. This court ordered appellant to show cause in wri ting by April 28, 2022 , why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We advised appellant that failure to respond timely would result in dismissal of this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(c). Appellant did not file a response.
Accor dingly, because appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation for failure to file a timely notice of appeal, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C), 42.3(b), (c); Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 615.

PER CURIAM
EX-10.1






SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

DATED EFFECTIVE AS OF APRIL 9, 2005, BETWEEN

GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC. AND EARL J. HESTERBERG




THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED EFFECTIVE AS OF APRIL 9, 2005, BETWEEN
GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC. AND EARL J. HESTERBERG (the “Second Amendment”) is entered into by and
between Group 1 Automotive, Inc. (“Employer”) and Earl J. Hesterberg (“Employee”) this
30th day of April, 2010 (“Effective Date”).



RECITALS




WHEREAS, Employer and Employee previously entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated
as of April 9, 2005, which is scheduled to expire at midnight on May 1, 2010 (the “Original
Employment Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, Employer and Employee also entered into that certain First Amendment to the
Employment Agreement dated effective November 8, 2007, between Group 1 Automotive, Inc. and Earl J.
Hesterberg (the “First Amendment” and together with the Original Employment Agreement, the
“Employment Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, Employer and Employee are currently negotiating a new employment agreement, the terms
and conditions of which have not been finalized as of the date hereof; and



WHEREAS, Employer and Employee desire to enter into this Second Amendment to further amend the
Employment Agreement to extend the Term for an additional sixty (60) days through June 30, 2010
(“Extension Period”), in order to complete negotiations of the new employment agreement, while
preserving all other terms and conditions of such Employment Agreement during said Extension
Period;



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the respective covenants and
agreements set forth below, the parties hereto agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:



1. The first sentence of Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended in its
entirety as follows: “The term of the Agreement shall be from May 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010
(the “Term”).”



2. All other terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect, except as modified herein.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment as of the Effective Date.



EMPLOYER:



GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC.



	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Darryl M. Burman
	
 
	 	 
	Name:

Title:

Date:

	 	Darryl M. Burman

Vice President

04/30/2010
	
 
	 	 
	EMPLOYEE:

	
 
	 	/s/ Earl J. Hesterberg
	 

	 	 
	Name:

Date:

	 	Earl J. Hesterberg, Individually

04/29/2010
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Form S-8 No. 33-34767 pertaining to the Incentive Stock Option Plan; Form S-8
No. 33-61543 pertaining to the Incentive Stock Option Plan; Form S-8 No. 333-
09847 pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan; Form S-8 No. 33-61543
pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan; and Form S-8 No. 333-66705
pertaining to the Employees' Savings and Protection Plan of Roberts
Pharmaceutical Corporation and in the Registration Statement S-3 No. 333-13729
of Roberts Pharmaceutical Corporation and in the related Prospectus of our
reports dated February 16, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Roberts Pharmaceutical Corporation included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                                   /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

MetroPark, New Jersey
November 22, 1999