alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I N T H E

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 20S-CR-569

Brian Kinman,

Appellant-Defendant,

–v–

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

Decided: September 28, 2020

Appeal from the Fayette Circuit Court

Nos. 21C01-1802-F5-131, 21C01-1906-F5-467

The Honorable Hubert Branstetter, Jr., Judge

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals

Case No. 19A-CR-2718

Per Curiam Opinion

Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CR-569 | September 28, 2020 Page 2 of 3

Per curiam.

On July 3, 2019, Brian Kinman pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony 

possession of a narcotic drug and Level 6 felony residential entry. Kinman 

orally moved to withdraw his guilty plea at the October 18 sentencing 

hearing, but the trial court denied the motion and sentenced Kinman that 

day.

On November 7, Kinman filed a pro se motion to vacate judgment and 

withdraw his plea, followed shortly thereafter by a petition to amend his 

sentence and a motion for transport. The trial court summarily denied 

these motions on November 18, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 

finding no abuse of discretion. Kinman v. State, 149 N.E.3d 619 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2020).

We grant transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals opinion. See Ind. 

Appellate Rule 58(A). But we summarily affirm the portion of the Court of 

Appeals opinion finding that Kinman’s oral motion to withdraw his guilty 

plea was procedurally defective, so the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying it. See Kinman, 149 N.E.3d at 627.

We also agree with the Court of Appeals that because Kinman’s postsentencing motion to vacate the judgment and withdraw the guilty plea 

was written and verified, as required by Ind. Code section 35-35-1-4(b), it 

is governed by Indiana’s Post-Conviction Rules and “shall be treated by 

the court as a petition for postconviction relief[.]” See 149 N.E.3d at 627, 

citing I.C. § 35-35-1-4(c).

Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(6) provides that the trial court “shall 

make specific findings of fact, and conclusions of law on all issues 

presented, whether or not a hearing is held.” However, the trial court

failed to include in its summary order any findings or conclusions on the 

issues Kinman raised in his de facto petition for post-conviction relief. We 

therefore remand this matter for entry of a revised order that complies 

with Indiana’s Post-Conviction Rules, including Rule 1(6).

All Justices concur. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CR-569 | September 28, 2020 Page 3 of 3

A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T

Kimberly A. Jackson

Indianapolis, Indiana

A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Samuel J. Dayton

Deputy Attorney General

Lauren A. Jacobsen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME OF THE COMPANY
AS OF AND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001011584
<NAME> FINE HOST CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         109,722
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,784
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,072
<INVENTORY>                                      6,241
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               147,615
<PP&E>                                          35,204
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,935
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 290,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,953
<BONDS>                                        175,574
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   290,178
<SALES>                                        275,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               275,068
<CGS>                                          259,854
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  259,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   950
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,802)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,787)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,821)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.74)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1
 Subsidiaries of Grubb & Ellis Apartment REIT, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6430

MICHAEL O. GAINEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-77)

Submitted: April 30, 1996 Decided: May 21, 1996

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael O. Gainey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Gainey v. Virginia Parole Bd., No. CA-96-77 (E.D. Va. Feb. 7,

1996). We deny Appellant's "Motion to Release" and motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         455,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,466,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,822,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,822,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          230,000
<BONDS>                                     12,994,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,822,000
<SALES>                                      2,780,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,780,000
<CGS>                                        1,395,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,395,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               542,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               545,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,354,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,056,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,056,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7887

LEON MCRAY KNIGHT, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-506-N)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon McRay Knight, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Knight

v. Angelone, No. CA-95-506-N (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                    SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS SEVENTH AMENDMENT, made as of the 1st day of March, 2001, by and
between MECHANICAL DYNAMICS, INC., a Michigan corporation (the "Company"),
having offices located at 2300 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, and
ROBERT R. RYAN, of Brighton, Michigan ("Employee"), for the purpose of amending
that certain Employment Agreement between the Company and Employee dated as of
April 1, 1994, and amended by agreements dated as of March 1, 1995, as of March
1, 1996, as of March 1, 1997, as of March 1, 1998, as of March 1, 1999, and as
of March 1, 2000 (collectively, the "Employment Agreement").


         WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to extend the Employment
Agreement for an additional one-year period.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual
covenants contained herein and in the Employment Agreement, the parties hereto
agree as follows:

         A. Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to extend
the term of said Agreement through March 31, 2003.

         B. Except as expressly modified herein, the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Seventh
Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

WITNESS:                                      COMPANY

                                            MECHANICAL DYNAMICS, INC.


/s/ Linda K. Moore                 By:  /s/ Michael E. Korybalski
-------------------------------         -----------------------------
                                        Michael E. Korybalski,
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                              EMPLOYEE


/s/ Linda K. Moore                      /s/ Robert R. Ryan
-------------------------------         -----------------------------
                                        Robert R. Ryan
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 3926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01098]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Notice of Board Meeting

DATES: January 23, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-
202-599-1426, Code: 472 801 767#; or via web: https://
teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/
19:meeting_YWU3NGFmZjQtNGYwMy00YjVlLWExYTEtMTkxODhiZTk0ODFi@thread.v2/
0?context=%7B%22Tid%22:%223f6323b7-e3fd-4f35-b43d-
1a7afae5910d%22,%22Oid%22:%229248ab6a-9efc-44f2-97e7-
a7417d24b91f%22%7D.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of 
External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Board Meeting Agenda

Open Session

1. Approval of the December 14, 2023, Board Meeting Minutes
2. Monthly Reports
    (a) Participant Report
    (b) Legislative Report
3. Quarterly Reports
    (c) Investment Review
    (d) Budget Review
    (e) Audit Status
4. Annual Expense Ratio Review
5. DOL Annual Audit Presentation
6. Internal Audit Update
7. Financial Wellness Survey Update
8. Record Keeping Service Update

Closed Session

9. Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(6), (c)(9)(B) and 
(c)(10).

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b (e)(1).

    Dated: January 17, 2024.
Dharmesh Vashee,
General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-01098 Filed 1-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23




                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-15219)  pertaining to the Open Plan Systems,  Inc. 1996 Stock Option
Plan for  Non-Employee  Directors,  the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8 No.
333-15217)  pertaining to the Open Plan Systems, Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive Plan,
the Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-37084) pertaining to the Open Plan
Systems,  Inc.  2000  Stock  Option  Plan  for  Non-Employee  Directors  and the
Registration  Statement  (Form S-8 No.  333-38588)  pertaining  to the Open Plan
Systems,  Inc.  Employee  Stock Purchase and Bonus Plan, of our report dated May
23, 2001,  with respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements of Open Plan
Systems,  Inc.  included  in the Annual  Report  (Form  10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000.


                                                 /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Richmond, Virginia
May 23, 2001
Exhibit 32.2



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 10-K of Trimeris, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert R. Bonczek, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ ROBERT R. BONCZEK  
|Robert R. Bonczek      
|                       
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 10, 2006         



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAFAEL GARY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 35 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**Meeting with National Association of Music Merchants**

**Location:** U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 20460 **Date and Time:** August 13, 2013, 1 pm EPA staff met with James Goldberg of Goldberg & Associates, PLLC representing the National Association of Music Merchants regarding the two proposed rules to implement Title VI of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) . Mr. Goldbe rg clarifi ed during the meeting that his association members mostly purchase and assemble finished goods made from composite wood products and therefore would be considered fabricators as opposed to laminated product producers under our proposed rule . Examples of what his members assemble includ e keyboards, instrument cases, audio speakers, guitars, and violins
. Mr. Goldberg discussed his concern about the proposed recordkeeping and labeling provision s for importers and fabricators to disclose the name of th e panel producer in th eir records
. Similarly he was concerned that importers might not know the names of their fabricators and t herefore could not put that on their label. Mr. Goldberg stated that his members who purchase parts made from composite wood products or who import parts made from composite wood products may not be provided the identity of the panel producer or fabricator because it is claimed as proprietary information
. Mr Goldberg also expressed his interest to partner with EPA to conduct outreach to his members on the requirements under TSCA Title VI once finalized.
[LETTERHEAD OF DR. VOLKER VOSSIUS]


                                                                  March 23, 1998
Diatide, Inc.
Nine Delta Drive
Londonderry, NH 03057
United States of America

     Re:  Diatide, Inc.
          Annual Report on Form 10-K For the Year
          Ended December 31, 1997
          ---------------------------------

Dear Sirs:

I hereby consent to the reference to my firm under the captions "Business --
Patents, Trade Secrets and Licenses" in Diatide Inc.'s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 1997.


Very truly yours,

/s/ DR. VOLKER VOSSIUS

Dr. Volker Vossius
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7803
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JASMINE PHILLIPS, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 99-6088
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JASMINE PHILLIPS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-130) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 16, 19992 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.Jasmine Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Carol M. Marx, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The order from which Phillips appeals was filed on December28, 1998, and entered on the district court’s docket sheet on December 29, 1998. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), December 29, 1998 is therefore the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 3 PER CURIAM: Jasmine Phillips seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying her motion for production of transcripts at government expense (No. 98-7803), and construing her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) as one filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and dismissing that motion as time-barred (No. 99-6608). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm as to appeal No. 98-7803, and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to appeal No. 99-6608, on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Phillips , No. CR-93-130 (E.D. Va. Nov. 4 & Dec. 29, 1998). * We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       HONORING MARGARET SCHUELKE

                                 ______
                                 

                  HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 14, 2012

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
proclamation.
  Whereas, many years ago a virtuous woman of God accepted her calling 
to serve the citizens in DeKalb County and the state of Georgia; and
  Whereas, Ms. Margaret Schuelke began her career in service working 
diligently to assist citizens in need, as director of Project Community 
Connections, Inc., she has and continues to assist individuals and 
families experiencing homelessness with permanent housing placements; 
and
  Whereas, this phenomenal woman has shared her time and talents, 
giving the citizens of our district a friend to help those in need, a 
fearless leader and a servant to all wanting to ensure that the system 
works for everyone; and
  Whereas, Ms. Margaret Schuelke is a cornerstone in our community that 
has enhanced the lives of thousands for the betterment of our District 
and Nation; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Margaret Schuelke for 
her outstanding leadership and service to our district and to 
congratulate her for being chosen as a Champion of Change by the White 
House;
  Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim 
August 29, 2012 as Ms. Margaret Schuelke Day in the 4th Congressional 
District of Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 29th day of August, 2012.

                          ____________________
```