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

No. O-76-951.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 16, 1977.

John T. Elliott, Public Defender, John M. Stuart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Duane N. Rasmussen, Legal Intern, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

The Appellant, Howard Lee Glaze, hereinafter referred to as defendant, appeals from an Order of the Oklahoma County District Court revoking his suspended sentences.

On November 21, 1973, the defendant was convicted in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-73-1980, on his plea of guilty, for the offense of Burglary in the Second Degree and was given a suspended sentence of five (5) years, one year of which was revoked on April 10, 1974. Also, on November 21, 1973, defendant entered a plea of guilty in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-73-2009 to the crime of Disposing of Mortgaged Property, and received a suspended sentence of three (3) years, one year of which was revoked on April 10, 1974.

On April 28, 1975, the District Attorney of Oklahoma County filed an Application to *716Revoke the remainder of said suspended sentences on the ground that the defendant had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation, specifically that he had committed the offense of Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree.

On the 18th day of June, 1976, a hearing was held and the District Court found the defendant had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation and ordered said suspended sentences to be revoked.

For his sole assignment of error the defendant contends that the evidence in *State*v. *Glaze,*CRF-75-3708, was insufficient to establish that he had committed the crime of Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree, as argued in the brief for his appeal in F-76-950. In light of our decision today in *Glaze v.*State, Okl.Cr., 565 P.2d 710, we find this contention to be wholly without merit.

The Order Revoking the suspended sentences is accordingly, *AFFIRMED.*

BLISS and BRETT, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0003064

17-APR-2015

08:22 AM
Exhibit 10.7

COMMON SECURITIES CERTIFICATE

THIS COMMON SECURITY HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR ANY STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR ANY OTHER
APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS AND MAY NOT BE OFFERED, SOLD, PLEDGED OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION. THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT TRANSFERABLE EXCEPT IN COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND SECTION 5.11 OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT

|Certificate Number |  | Number of Common Securities: 1,238
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------
|C-1                |  |                                   

Certificate Evidencing Common Securities

of

BRESLER & REINER STATUTORY TRUST I

Common Securities

(liquidation amount $1,000 per Common Security)

Bresler & Reiner Statutory Trust I, a statutory trust created under the laws of the State of Delaware (the
"Trust"), hereby certifies that Bresler & Reiner, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Holder") is the registered owner of 1,238 common securities of the Trust representing undivided common beneficial interests in the assets of the Trust
and designated the Bresler & Reiner Statutory Trust I Common Securities (liquidation amount $1,000 per Common Security) (the "Common
Securities"). Except in accordance withSection 5.11of the Trust Agreement (as defined below), the Common Securities are
not transferable and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any attempted transfer hereof other than in accordance therewith shall be void. The designations, rights, privileges, restrictions,
preferences and other terms and provisions of the Common Securities are set forth in, and this certificate and the Common Securities represented hereby are issued and shall in all respects be subject
to the terms and provisions of, the Amended and Restated Trust Agreement of the Trust, dated as of November 29, 2005 as the same may be amended from time to time (the
"Trust Agreement"), among Bresler & Reiner, Inc., as Depositor, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as Property Trustee, Chase Bank
USA, National Association, as Delaware Trustee, the Administrative Trustees named therein and the Holders, from time to time, of Trust Securities. The Trust will furnish a copy of the Trust Agreement
to the Holder without charge upon written request to the Trust at its principal place of business or registered office.

Upon
receipt of this certificate, the Holder is bound by the Trust Agreement and is entitled to the benefits thereunder.

This
Common Securities Certificate shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware.

Terms
used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Trust Agreement.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, one of the Administrative Trustees of the Trust has executed on behalf of the Trust this certificate this 29th day of November, 2005.

| | BRESLER & REINER STATUTORY TRUST I
| | ----------------------------------
| | By:                               
| |                                   

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6675
THERON JOHNNY MAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; STATE BOARD OF NURSING; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-889-3-6BC) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Maxton v. State Board of Medical Examiners , No. CA-96-889-3-6BC (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 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
New Mexico State Regional Haze SIP submitted to EPA 

December 1, 2003 (NM-49) - Amendments Part 73 

(20.2.73 NMAC), Notice of Intent and Emissions 

Inventory Requirements. This submittal was superseded 

by revisions to Part 73 approved by EPA August 12, 2010 

(75 FR 48860). This submittal is available in 

Regulations.gov docket EPA-R06-OAR-2005-NM-0009, 

document EPA-R06-OAR-2005-NM-0009-0004.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

October 11, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-14953

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-00290 CV-BE-S

ROBERT D. GREER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(October 11, 2006)

Before ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and VINSON,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

___________________

*Honorable C. Roger Vinson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida,

sitting by designation.
2

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the

judgment of the district court should be affirmed for the reasons fully discussed at

oral argument.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Wilson, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J., at hearing; Robert Haft, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 5, 1989, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

We agree with the suppression court that the actions of the police officers were justified, and that suppression of the physical evidence was not warranted. Since defendant was seated in a double parked car, there was adequate predicate to make inquiry; further, defendant was lawfully ordered to exit the car *(People v Ingle,*36 NY2d 413). The inspection of the interior of the car and the search of defendant’s waistband were justified by the testimony that defendant produced an *461expired insurance card (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 319 [2]) and dropped a silver cartridge to the floor. *(People v Belton,*55 NY2d 49, 55, *rearg denied*56 NY2d 646.) In reaching our determination, we give great weight to the hearing court’s acceptance of the officers’ testimony. *(People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86.) Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
The model code and executables, as well as the supporting documentation and test cases, for the latest 

version of AERMET and AERMOD (both version 15181) are available at the following URL:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/11thmodconf.htm#aermod
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Brown, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered March 22, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of reckless endangerment in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felony offender, to consecutive indeterminate prison terms of from *3Vi*to 7 years and from 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant argues that his conviction for third degree criminal possession of stolen property must be reduced to possession in the fourth degree on the ground that the People failed to establish that the value of the stolen 1987 Pontiac Grand Am exceeded the statutory minimum of $3,000 (Penal Law § 165.50). We disagree. The owner of the vehicle testified that it was in "very good condition” just prior to the theft. Significant damage was incurred *after*the theft by defendant’s ramming the vehicle into a police barricade, behind which *449stood a crowd of pedestrians. The People’s licensed expert automobile appraiser personally examined the car and found it to be in "good condition” even after the accident, and further that its book value was approximately $9,000. This evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the People, sufficiently established that the Grand Am’s value exceeded the $3,000 statutory minimum.

Defendant’s argument that the sentences he received for criminal possession of stolen property and reckless endangerment were required to run concurrently, is without merit. Penal Law § 70.25 (2) requires concurrent sentences for two or more offenses when the offenses are committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other. Defendant makes no claim that the latter prong of this rule is applicable here.

An "act” is defined as "a bodily movement” (Penal Law § 15.00 [1]). It is clear that the act of possessing the stolen automobile and the act of driving that automobile into a crowd of people were separate and distinct. Accordingly, consecutive sentences were properly imposed. *(See, People v Trues-dell,*70 NY2d 809; *People v Brathwaite,*63 NY2d 839.) Concur —Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART FOUR

ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

Article 204

(ex Article 188 TEC)

(ex Article 188 TEC)

The provisions of Articles 198 to 203 shall apply to Greenland, subject to the specific provisions for Greenland set out in the Protocol on special arrangements for Greenland, annexed to the Treaties.

---
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 131ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on July 30, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

American National Insurance Company, Appellant

V.

The Conestoga Settlement Trust, The RE Family Trust and Shea Ungar A/K/A Hershey Ungar Trustee of the

RE Family Trust, Appellee

No. 04-13-00719-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2011-CI-17464

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.

We order that appellees the Conestoga Settlement Trust, the RE Family

Trust, and Shea Ungar a/k/a Hershey Ungar, Trustee of the RE Family Trust,

recover their costs of this appeal from appellant American National Insurance

Company.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on April 20, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-13-00719-CV

American National Insurance Company

v.

The Conestoga Settlement Trust, The RE Family Trust and Shea Ungar A/K/A Hershey Ungar

Trustee of the RE Family Trust

(NO. 2011-CI-17464 IN 131ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

COPIES

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

FILING

INDIGENT

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

MOTION FEE

COPIES

REPORTER'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

$10.00

$1.80

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$100.00

$25.00

$20.00

$50.00

$10.00

$4.00

$0.00

$10.00

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

E-PAID

PAID

UNKNOWN

E-PAID

LORIEN WHYTE

BRYAN KOST

KEITH KENDALL

KEITH KENDALL

KEITH KENDALL

MICHAEL HEYGOOD

BRIN & BRIN

JAMES C. ORR, JR.

JAMES C. ORR, JR.

BRIN & BRIN

BRIN & BRIN

BRIN & BRIN

BRIN & BRIN

BRIN & BRIN

UNKNOWN

PAMELA SHEEHAN

DANIEL POZZA

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this April 20, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
Exhibit 32


  Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.(the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended May 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/  Fred R. Adams, Jr.
---------------------------------------
Fred R. Adams, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer



/s/  Bobby J. Raines
---------------------------------------
Bobby  J. Raines
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 12, 2003
# C_2016202EN.01007801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/78

---

Article 80

The policies of the Union set out in this Chapter and their implementation shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States. Whenever necessary, the Union acts adopted pursuant to this Chapter shall contain appropriate measures to give effect to this principle.

---
----

----

----

| 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. |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Matthew K. Rose                             |   | /s/      Thomas N. Hund                                  |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Matthew      K. Rose                                 |   | Thomas      N. Hund                                      |
| Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |

----

----
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



                Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant To
                  Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

I, Geoffrey G. Meyers, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Manor Care, Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

         (1)  The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
              ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
              Commission on the date hereof (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 result of
              operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in
              the Report.

/s/ Geoffrey G. Meyers

Geoffrey G. Meyers
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
April 28, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.1

CHASE GENERAL CORPORATION

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 Chase General Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry Yantis, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Treasurer 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 to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|September 23, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Barry M. Yantis                                                    
|Date               |  |  |  | Barry M. Yantis                                                        
|                   |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer,
President and Treasurer



49
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

# AGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

# ACTION:

Notice of Designated Reserve Ratio for 2024.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), the Board of Directors (Board) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) designates that the Designated Reserve Ratio (DRR) for the Deposit Insurance Fund shall remain at 2 percent for 2024. The Board is publishing this notice as required by the FDI Act.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ashley Mihalik, Associate Director, Financial Risk Management, Division of Insurance and Research, 202-898-3793,                         *amihalik@fdic.gov*; Daniel Hoople, Chief, Fund Analysis and Pricing Section, Division of Insurance and Research, 202-898-3835,                         *dhoople@fdic.gov*; or Kathryn Marks, Counsel, Legal Division, 202-898-3896,                         *kmarks@fdic.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to the FDI Act, the Board designates that the DRR for the Deposit Insurance Fund shall remain at 2 percent for 2024. The Board is publishing this notice as required by section 7(b)(3)(A)(i) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(b)(3)(A)(i)). There is no need to amend 12 CFR 327.4(g), the section of the FDIC's regulations which sets forth the DRR, because the DRR for 2024 is the same as the current DRR.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC, on November 16, 2023.

James P. Sheesley,

Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-25814 Filed 11-21-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P