alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Salter, Appellant.

(No. 30951

Decided March 26, 1947.)

*Mr. Joel 8: Rhinefort,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Harry Friberg,*for appellee.

*Mr. William D. Driscoll,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., . Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20456 Summary Calendar

NINO CASTELLANIA GIBSON, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CV-1145

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Nino Castellania Gibson, Texas prisoner # 561250, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the denial of credit for time served on release to mandatory supervision after his supervision was revoked. A certificate of appealability was granted on the issues “whether he was eligible for credit for his street time under T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 508.283(c) and whether he had a protected liberty interest in credit for his street time.” Gibson v. Dretke , No. 04-20456 (5thNo. 04-20456 -2- Cir. Jan. 4, 2005) (unpublished). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de

novo. Summers v. Dretke , 431 F.3d 861, 868 (5th Cir. 2005). Section 508.283(c) was amended to provide “that certain parole violators will receive street-time credit if the ‘remaining portion’ of their sentence is less than the amount of time they have spent out on parole.” See Ex parte Spann , 132 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The amendments, however, apply only to revocations occurring on or after September 1, 2001. Id. ; T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 508.283 (Vernon 2004). The record discloses that Gibson’s mandatory supervision was revoked on March 26, 2001. Consequently, he is not entitled to credit for street time because his mandatory supervision was revoked prior to September 1, 2001. See Spann , 132 S.W.3d at 392. We therefore need not reach the issue whether § 508.283(c) affords Texas prisoners a liberty interest in street-time credit. In light of the foregoing, the state court’s decision was neither contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence.
See § 2254(d); Summers , 431 F.3d at 868
. AFFIRMED.
Confidential Business Information received from Whirlpool 

Corporation on November 12, 2014.

For more information, please contact Margaret Sheppard by 

phone at 202-343-9163 or by email at 

sheppard.margaret@epa.gov.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Eleventh Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security 
Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security Access 
Control Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
eleventh meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224, Airport Security Access 
Control Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 9, 2012, from 10 a.m.-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224, Airport Security 
Access Control Systems. The agenda will include the following:

February 9, 2012

    <bullet> Welcome, Introductions, and Administrative Remarks
    <bullet> Review and approve summary from tenth plenary meeting
    <bullet> Updates from the TSA and SIA
    <bullet> Discussion of PMC response to committee recommendation
    <bullet> Planning for next version development
    <bullet> Time and Place of Next Meeting
    <bullet> Any Other Business
    <bullet> Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 2012.
John Raper,
Manager, Business Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-543 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) (the Act) and Rule 13a-14(b) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), each of the undersigned, Randall D. Stilley, Chief Executive Officer and President of Hercules Offshore, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), and Steven A. Manz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify that, to his knowledge:



(1)
the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                        |  |                                                         
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: December 9, 2005 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Randall D. Stilley
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                        |  | Randall D. Stilley Chief Executive Officer and President
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Steven A. Manz    
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                        |  | Steven A. Manz Chief Financial Officer                  



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and Rule 13a-14(b) promulgated under the Exchange Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-23995 and 333-34521) on Form S-8 of BostonFed Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") of our report, dated January 22, 2002, related to the consolidated
balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001,
which report is incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
the Company for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                                                    /s/ KPMG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1678 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1678

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the first-time 
             homebuyer tax credit, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 16, 2009

  Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Reid, Mr. Isakson, and Ms. 
   Stabenow) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the first-time 
             homebuyer tax credit, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 36 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 1, 2009'' and 
inserting ``June 1, 2010''.
    (b) Election To Treat Purchase in Prior Year.--Subsection (g) of 
section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``December 1, 2009'' and inserting 
        ``January 1, 2010'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a 
        purchase of a principal residence after December 31, 2009, and 
        before June 1, 2010, a taxpayer may elect to treat such 
        purchase as made on December 31, 2009, for purposes of this 
        section (other than subsections (c) and (f)(4)(D)).''.
    (c) Extension of Waiver of Recapture.--Subparagraph (D) of section 
36(f)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``December 1, 2009'' and inserting ``June 
        1, 2010'', and
            (2) by striking ``in 2009'' in the heading and inserting 
        ``after 2008''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to residences purchased after November 30, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,**

**Petitioner**

**v. MICHAEL ELIAS STOSIC,**  **Respondent :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 2280 Disciplinary Docket No. 3**

**No. 65 DB 2015 Attorney Registration No. 90763**  **(Philadelphia)**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 14 th**  **day of September, 2016, upon consideration of the Re port**  **and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, the Pet ition for Review, and the Office**  **of Disciplinary Counsel’s answer, Michael Elias Stosic is susp ended from the Bar of this**  **Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day, and he shall comply with all the**  **provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board**  **pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).**
KAREN McBRIEN, Plaintiff,
v. FEDERALBUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

### et

## at., Defendants. 

### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil ActionNo.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED FEB" 3

# 2009 NANCYMAYERWHITIINGTON.

### Cl.EHK 

## u.s.DISTRICT

### COlIIr


# 09 

# 0197

This matter comes before the court onreview ofplaintiffs application to proceed 

### in formapauperis and 

### pro se civil complaint. 1 The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. The court must dismiss a complaint ifit is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which reliefcanbe granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(I)(B). In

### Neitzke v. 

### Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authorityto dismiss not only claims based on an indisputablymeritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions
are clearlybaseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of
cases whose factual contentions are clearlybaseless. !d. at 328. The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged
are irrational or whollyincredible. 

### Denton v. 

### Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

Plaintiffhas submitted two pleadings which appear to be duplicates. Forpurposes ofthis Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court consolidates the two pleadings. 1

### Plaintiffalleges that various federal government agencies and contractors are conducting surveillance on her in herhome and as she travels, that other entities have conducted biomedical and genetic experiments on her, and that other unidentified individuals are conspiring to harass her and to deprive her ofany assistance with hertroubles. Plaintiffdemands monetary damages and injunctive relief. The court is mindful that complaints filed bypro se 

### litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted bylawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 

### 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972). Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, it appears that its factual contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. An 

### Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1827 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1827

     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain polyresin magnets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 2009

  Mr. Baucus introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain polyresin magnets.

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

SECTION 1. POLYRESIN MAGNETS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Polyresin magnets,  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          not festive                                                        31/2011.......
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          8505.19.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O
. P D

- 1 7 7 0

- 1 0

J E R I L E I G H B A R R O N , A p p e l l a n t

v .
T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E F I F T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

C O L L I N C O U N T Y

K E L L E R , P
. J
. , f

i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n . J ust last month, we handed down our opi nion in Ouellette v. State , a ca se that is fac tually 1
simil ar to the prese nt case
. I n Ouellette , as in this case , there was evidenc e that there wer e pills in 2
the defe ndant’s car that wer e capa ble of causing intox ication. The question was whether that 3

2011 Tex. Crim . App. L EXI S 1373 (October 12). 1
As in the prese nt c ase, an off icer in Ouellette found pills in the defe ndant’s car that wer e 2 capa ble of c ausing intox ication. See id.
Id

. 3BARRON — 2

evidenc e author ized submi ssion of the “sy nerg istic effe ct” jury

char g e. We held that it did. 4
The court of appea ls held in this case that simil ar evidenc e did not authorize submissi on of the “sy nerg istic effe ct” c harg e. I n so holding, the c ourt of appe als did not have the be nefit of our 5 opinion in Ouellette

. Ouellette casts doubt on whether there was err or in this case and, even if err or

occur red, how the harm analy sis should proce ed. Rather than conduct a harm analy sis on what may

not even be err or, I would vacate t he decision of the court of appea ls and rema nd this case for

rec onsideration in light of Ouellette

. 6

Be cause the Court does not do so, I respe ctfully dissent.

Filed: Nove mber 9, 2011 Publis h

Id

.

4
Barron v. State , No. 05-09-00589- CR, 2010 W L 2183281 (not desig nated f or 5 publication). Although the issue of err or was not raised by the State in its petition, this Court may g rant 6 discretionar

y revie w on its own motion. Tex. R. App. P. 66.1 (“The Court of Criminal Appea ls may revie w a co u rt o f appeals’ decision in a criminal case on its own initiative under Rule 67 or in a petition for discretionar

y revie w under Rule 68.”), 67.1 (“[T]he court of Criminal Appea ls may g rant revie w of a court of appea ls’ decision in a criminal case at any time befor e the mandate of the court of appea ls issues.”). Doing so is espec ially appropr iate here , wher e the court of appea ls has not had the benef it of a decision from this Court that is direc tly rele vant to the issues that wer e addre ssed below.
`EXHIBIT 23



                                                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                                             REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements of The First Bancshares,  Inc., on Form
S-8 (Registration  No. 333-97001 and No. 333-81264) of our report dated March 28,  2008 on the 2007 consolidated  financial
statements  of The First  Bancshares,  Inc.,  which report is included in the 2007 Annual  Report on Form 10-K of The First
Bancshares, Inc.



                                                                       /S/ T. E. LOTT & COMPANY



Columbus, Mississippi
March 28, 2008`
exv10w4



 





Exhibit 10.4




AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT OF SALE




     This
Amendment to Contract of Sale (“Amendment”), the effective date of which is June 2,
2006, is entered into by TR HIDDEN LAKE PARTNERS, LTD., a Texas
limited partnership (“Seller”) and
TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company
(“Buyer”). Buyer and Seller are
sometimes collectively referred to herein as the
“Parties”.



Recitals




     A. WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Contract of Sale (the
“Agreement”) with an Effective Date of May 4, 2006, pursuant to which Seller agreed to
sell and Buyer agreed to purchase certain improved real property located in Bexar
County, Texas, more particularly described in the Agreement;



     B. WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Feasibility Period
expired May 5, 2006, but was then extended to May 12, 2006, and then June 2, 2006,
pursuant to letter agreements by and between Seller and Buyer dated May 5, 2006, and
May 25, 2006, respectively; and



     C. WHEREAS,
Seller and Buyer mutually desire to amend certain provisions of the
Agreement.



Agreement




     NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth herein
entered into by Buyer and Seller, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, Seller and
Buyer agree as follows:




	 	1.	 	The parties hereto have agreed that the “Feasibility Period” as defined in
Section 5(a) of the Agreement will expire July 10, 2006.
	 
	 	2.	 	All terms defined in the Agreement and denoted by initial
capital letters shall have the same meanings provided in the
Agreement when used in this Amendment,
except to the extent that the moaning of any defined term is modified by or expressly
set forth in the provisions of this Amendment.
	 
	 	3.	 	This Amendment may be executed in multiple originals, each of which shall
constitute an original for all purposes and together which shall constitute a fully
executed agreement. A facsimile signature shall be deemed an original signature for
all purposes.










 









 











     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Buyer have executed this Amendment to be effective as of
June 2, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SELLER:
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	TR HIDDEN LAKE
PARTNERS, LTD.,
	 	 	a Texas limited partnership
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	TRDC Hidden Lake Partners, Ltd.,
	 	 	 	 	a Texas limited partnership, its general partner
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	By:	 	Thompson Realty Development Corporation,
	 	 	 	 	 	 	a Texas corporation, its general partner
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ W.T. Field
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 	W.T. Field	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Title:
	 	President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	BUYER:
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES,
LLC,
	 	 	a Virginia limited liability company
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Louis Rogers	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Name:	 	Louis Rogers
	 	 	Title:	 	President
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D202 3

- 1701

_____________________________
M ICHAEL O. W ALLACE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the C ircuit Court for Leon County

. Francis J. Allman, Jr. , Judge

. June 6, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , B ILBREY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Henry C

. Whitaker
, Solicitor General
, Jeffrey Paul DeSousa
, Chief Deputy Solicitor General
, and Allen L. Huang
, Deputy Solicitor General , Tallahassee
, for Appell ee

.