alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cite as 2020 Ark. 260

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ADOPTION OF ARKANSAS

RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION TO 

THE BAR: RULE XV-A TEMPORARY 

SUPERVISED PRACTICE AND JULY 

2020 ARKANSAS BAR EXAMINATION 

Opinion Delivered: July 9, 2020

PER CURIAM

On this 9th day of July, 2020, upon the recommendation of the Arkansas Supreme 

Court Board of Law Examiners, the Court adopts Temporary Supervised Practice Rule XVA of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar. The Rule is adopted after the Court’s 

consideration of the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential impact on applicants for the 

July 2020 Uniform Bar Exam being administered in Arkansas. In addition, based on the 

recommendation of the Board of Law Examiners, the Court further orders that

1. The July 2020 Arkansas Bar Exam will be administered as scheduled for all 

applicants properly and timely registered who wish to sit for the Exam.

2. Any properly and timely registered applicant for the July 2020 Bar Exam may 

have his or her application and fee transferred to the February 2021 Arkansas 

Bar Exam without penalty if written notice is given to the Executive Director of 

the Board by July 15, 2020.
EX-10.8





 Exhibit 10.8 

FORM OF INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT 
 [Date]

 [Full Name] 
 Re: Montauk Renewables, Inc. 

[Mr./Ms.] [Last Name] 
 Thank you for serving as a Director and
Officer of Montauk Renewables, Inc. (the “Company”). The Company is providing you this letter to summarize certain indemnification protections that pertain to the performance of your responsibilities as a Director and Officer of the
Company. 
 Montauk Holdings USA, LLC and Montauk Holdings Limited maintain directors and officers (D&O) insurance coverage with Zurich and RKH
Specialty, respectively, or other carrier(s) as the Company may choose, as the lead carrier. Coverage for your service as a Director and Officer of the Company is included under the terms and conditions of this policy. 

In addition to the Company’s D&O insurance as described above, you will be indemnified and exculpated in your capacity as a Director and Officer to
the extent provided by the governing documents of the Company and local law. In general, the governing documents of the Company indemnify you to the full extent permitted by applicable law. In addition, the governing documents of the Company provide
that you shall not be personally liable to the Company or its stockholders for or with respect to any act or omission as a Director to the full extent permitted by applicable law. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company will not indemnify you for
conduct for which indemnification is not permitted under applicable law. 
 Please note that local law may change at any time and we are under no obligation
to update this letter to reflect any such change. 
 Montauk Renewables, Inc. 

[Signature] 
 [Name] 

[Title]
#### KENNETH JONES ET AL. *v.*ALLAN A. CRYSTAL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES

*Dana Shaw MacKinnon,*in support of the petition.

*Jonathon L. Ensign,*assistant attorney general, in opposition.

Decided May 7, 1998

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 694 (AC 15799), is denied.
OKLAHOMA DEPARIMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BRAD HENRY STEVEN A. THOMPSON



### .OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY Governor Executive Director

February 22,2008
OG&E Attn:**Mr~** David Branecky P.O. Box 321 OKC, OK 73101-0321 Subject: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Waiver Horseshoe Lake Generating Station DearMr. Branecky: The Oklahoma Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ODEQ) received a BART waiver request for the referenced site onDecember 1, 2006. After the technical review, the ODEQ is approving a waiver for· the Horseshoe Lake Generating Station., This waiver is based on facility BART sources which are not expected to cause or contribute.to visibility impacts at Class I areas based on submitted modeling. While ODEQ has approvedthe waiver, the waiver is subject to**~P** A and public comment during the Region<;tl Haze State Implementation .Pr9gram (SIP) approval process. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Ifwe may be offurther service, please contactPhillip Fielder (405) 702-4100.

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OKLAHOMACITY, OKLAHOMA 73101-1677 printed on recycled paper with soy ink
.. 

# o
A01A2426.

#### SMITH v. THE STATE.

(556 SE2d 527)

Ruffin, Judge.

In January 2001, Thomas J. Smith filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal ensued. For reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand for further consideration.

It is well settled that “[a] defendant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal if he was deprived of his right to appeal by his attorney’s negligence or ignorance, or if he was not adequately informed of his appeal rights.”1 Nevertheless, a defendant may,

> by his own conduct or in concert with his counsel, forfeit his right to appeal by sleeping on his rights. The disposition of a motion for out-of-time appeal thus turns on the issue of who ultimately bore the responsibility for the failure to file a timely appeal. Where the record does not indicate that the trial court adequately addressed this dispositive issue, we will remand for a hearing to consider it.2

Here, the trial court determined that Smith was not entitled to an out-of-time appeal because he “already had his appeal considered *473by the Court of Appeals.” However, this Court dismissed Smith’s appeal because it was not timely filed and, thus, never reached the merits. Accordingly, the issue remains as to whether Smith is entitled to an out-of-time appeal. The trial court never conducted an evidentiary hearing to address this issue, and we are unable to ascertain who bore the ultimate responsibility for failing to file a timely appeal. Under these circumstances, we must vacate the trial court’s order denying Smith’s motion and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on his motion.3 Indeed, the State concedes that Smith is entitled to such hearing.

Decided November 15, 2001.

*John M. Daley,*for appellant.

*Fred R. Simpson, District Attorney, Charles S. Cox, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed and remanded with direction.*

*Johnson, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur.*

3

 Id. at 516.

1

*Brennan v. State,*247 Ga. App. 515 (544 SE2d 210) (2001).

2

 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Id.
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 on Form 10-K of Main Street and Main
Incorporated (the "Company") for the year ended December 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Bart
A. Brown, Jr., 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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


MAIN STREET AND MAIN INCORPORATED

/s/ Bart A. Brown, Jr.
------------------------------
Bart A. Brown, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 31, 2003

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Main  Street and Main  Incorporated  and will be  retained  by Main
Street and Main  Incorporated  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission and its staff upon request.
#### STATE ex rel. Richard LAY v. Clayton JAMES, Judge, 22nd Judicial District Court.

No. 89-KH-1336.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Lay, Richard; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, Nos. 88-15447, 88-15448.

Denied. The district court records contain neither requests for issuance of subpoenas nor requests that trial dates be set. There are no pleadings filed upon which this Court can order action. Therefore, relator should submit pleadings seeking trial dates and the issuance of subpoenas, if that is the action which he desires the trial court to take.
#### Jose Luis HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 84-1595.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 27, 1987.

See also, 488 So.2d 926.

Jose Luis Hernandez, in pro. per.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Michele L. Crawford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We have jurisdiction to consider the petition of Jose Luis Hernandez for a writ of habeas corpus predicated on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. *Smith v. State,*400 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981); *Peri v. State,*458 So.2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); *see Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The record demonstrates that appellate counsel failed to provide effective assistance: he did not challenge on direct appeal the sentence imposed by the trial court outside sentencing guidelines even though the trial court neglected to provide clear and convincing written reasons for departure. *State v. Chaplin,*490 So.2d 52 (Fla.1986); *State v. Whitfield,*487 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1986); *State v. Jackson,*478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985); *Echevarria v. State,*492 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); *Bauza v. State,*491 So.2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); *Mortimer v. State,*490 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); *Bouthner v. State,*489 So.2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); *Corum v. State,*484 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Fla.R. *164Crim.P. 3.701(d)11; *but cf. Speights v. State,*495 So.2d 882, 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (“if adequate reasons are listed by the sentencing judge in that space provided on the approved sentencing guidelines scoresheet, a separate written order delineating reasons for departure is unnecessary”); *see also Stone v. State,*500 So.2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Finding merit in petitioner’s contention, we grant the relief sought.

We note that the trial court correctly recognized that the five-year mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1983), takes precedence over the recommended guidelines sentence. *Vanover v. State,*498 So.2d 899 (Fla.1986); *Allen v. State,*479 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)9; *see also Pedraza v. State,*493 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Here, however, the trial court’s sentence exceeded both the guidelines and mandatory minimum sentence. We therefore grant the petition, vacate the sentence, and remand the cause to the trial court for resen-tencing. On remand, the trial court should either resentence Hernandez within the guidelines as modified by the minimum mandatory requirement or demonstrate by clear and convincing written reasons its grounds for departure.

Petition granted; sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing.
#### James H. CURTIS, Plaintiff and Appellant—Phares & Lites, v. INSURED LLOYD’S, Defendant and Appellee—Tri-State Underwriters.

No. 88-619.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 28, 1989.

Cook, Yancey, King & Galloway, Brian Homza, Shreveport, for appellant.

Fish, Montgomery & Robinson, Roy Fish, Minden, for appellee.

Before: GUIDRY, FORET, and DOUCET, JJ.

DOUCET, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated case of *Charlotte Krueger v. Billy Tabor, et al.,*546 So.2d 1317 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1989), rendered this day, the judgment appealed is REVERSED IN PART, AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED in accordance with the views expressed in the companion case.

REVERSED IN PART; AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Robertson & Associates, LLP Greenberg Traurig, LLP/Las Vegas Lee, Hernandez, Landrum, Garofalo Hutchison & Steffen, LLC Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP/San Diego Gordon & Rees, LLP Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP/Del Mar Heights McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Las Vegas Martin & Allison, Ltd. Castle & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF 2

NEVADA

(0) [947A ea
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350**








In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10Q-SB of Rotoblock Corporation
      (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the Report), I, Matthias Heinze, Chief Executive Officer, hereby
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





(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 Registrant.










Date: August 13, 2007      **ROTOBLOCK
      CORPORATION**





/s/ Matthias Heinze


By: Matthias Heinze, President, Chief
      Executive Officer and Director
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Tony BROWN.

No. 88-KO-0673.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re Brown, Tony; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KA87 1078; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 1-87-98.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
      OF
      2002**





I,
      Samuel
      M. Skipper, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of ECCO Energy
      Corp. hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002,
      that:





|(1) | the
              Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006
              (the
              “Annual Report”) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
              requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
              Act of
              1934 (15 U>S>C> 78m or 78o(d))
              and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | information
              contained in the Annual report fairly presents, in all material respects,
              the financial condition and results of operations of ECCO Energy
              Corp.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:/s/ Samuel M. SkipperName:
                Samuel M. SkipperTitle:
                President and CEO








Date:  March
      30,
      2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Leonard VICTORIANO v. Basil QUICK, et al.

No. 86-CC-1304.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1986.

In re Quick, Basil; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, stay; Parish of *11Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 308-359; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86 C 399.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7554

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TROY ROLLE, a/k/a Robert Stan Marks,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-97-608)

Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 25, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Rolle, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Troy Rolle appeals the district court’s oral order

denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). Rolle sought relief based on the Supreme

Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

The relief Rolle seeks is unavailable under § 3582(c)(2). See

United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 473 (4th Cir. 2004)(noting

that § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a “district court to reduce the

sentence imposed on a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of

imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been

lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(o)”); see also United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220

(11th Cir. 2005) (holding that “Booker is inapplicable to

§ 3582(c)(2) motions”). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
#### STATE ex rel. Samuel HULL v. Hon. Frank A. MARULLO, Judge, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, Section D.

No. 87-KH-2526.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Hull, Samuel; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 248278.

Denied. Moot. Transcripts have been furnished.
Summary of the Compensation of Non-Employee Directors of Sigma-Aldrich Corp



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Summary of the Compensation of Non-Employee Directors of Sigma-Aldrich Corporation 
  
 On May 3, 2005 the Board of Directors of the Company approved an amendment to its
compensation program for Directors who are not officers or employees of the Company (“Non-Employee Directors”). The amendment increased the annual retainer, meeting fees for the committee chairman and the number of stock options issued to
Non-Employee Directors. Set forth below is a summary of the compensation provided to Non-Employee Directors following this amendment. Directors who are also officers or employees of the Company do not receive any compensation for duties performed as
Directors. 
  
 Retainer: Each Non-Employee Director receives an annual retainer of
$40,000. 
  
 Stock Option Grants: The Company’s 2003 Long-Term Incentive Plan
for Non-Employee Directors provides for the annual grant of a nonqualified option to purchase 5,000 shares of common stock immediately following the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders to Non-Employee Directors. In addition, an option to
purchase 10,000 shares is granted upon a Non-Employee Director’s initial election of appointment to the Board of Directors. The exercise price per share with respect to each option is the fair market value (as defined in the Plan) of the
Company’ common stock on the date the option is granted. 
  
 Meeting Fees:
The following table provides information related to the meeting fees for Non-Employee Directors: 
  

													
	 	  	 Board of
 Directors

	  	 Audit
 Committee (1)

	  	 Compensation
 Committee (2)

	  	 Corporate
 Governance
 Committee (3)


	Participation in person (4)	  	$	3,000	  	$	1,000	  	$	1,000	  	$	1,000
	Participation via conference call	  	$	1,500	  	$	500	  	$	500	  	$	500



	(1)	The Audit Committee Chairman receives $4,000 for every meeting attended in person and $2,000 for every conference call in which they participate. 


	(2)	The Compensation Committee Chairman receives $2,000 for every meeting attended in person and $1,000 for every conference call in which they participate. 


	(3)	The Corporate Governance Committee Chairman receives $2,000 for every meeting attended in person and $1,000 for every conference call in which they participate.



	(4)	Non-employee directors participating in person at meetings also receive reimbursement of travel expenses. 

  

 25
EXHIBIT
      23.1








CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








As
      independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the
      incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-71230, 333-28659,
      333-78161, 333-42122, 333-55108, 333-125324, and 333-128117 on Form S-3 and
      Registration Statement Nos. 333-43612, 333-78155, 333-89931 and 333-55100 on
      Form S-8 of our report dated February 23, 2006, relating to the consolidated
      financial statements of Main Street Restaurant Group, Inc., and subsidiaries
      as
      of December 26, 2005 and December 27, 2004 and for each of the three years
      in
      the period ended December 26, 2005, included in this Annual Report on Form
      10-K
      for the year ended December 26, 2005.








/s/
      Mayer
      Hoffman McCann P.C.





MAYER
      HOFFMAN MCCANN P.C.


Phoenix,
      Arizona


March
      22,
      2006