alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Habeas Corpus of William B. CUSTER.

No. A—12226.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 29, 1955.

H. G. Dickey, Tulsa, for petitioner.

J. Howard Edmondson, County Atty., Tulsa County, Tulsa, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., James P. Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

POWELL, Judge.

This is an original action in habeas corpus instituted by the petitioner, William B. Custer, for the purpose of being admitted to bail upon a charge of murder, which was pending against him by an information filed in the district court of Tulsa County.

The testimony of petitioner, one witness for the State, and the evidence of additional witnesses taken at the preliminary examination in the court of common pleas of Tulsa County and in the application for bail in the district court of Tulsa Coun*869ty, has been considered in connection with this application.

The evidence presented makes extremely difficult the task of determining’ the right of petitioner to be admitted to bail. The defendant’s wife met her death by means of wounds from a .45 calibre automatic pistol. Likewise petitioner was wounded in the head by .45 calibre slugs. We must not express any conclusions as to the weight of the evidence, but the showing made by petitioner is sufficient to entitle him to be admitted to bail.

It is therefore ordered that petitioner be admitted to bail in the reasonable sum of $35,000, conditioned as required by law, and to be approved by the court clerk of Tulsa County.

JONES, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
#### STUDIO 1712, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ETNA PRODUCTS CO., INC., a New York corporation; Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation; Hanover House Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 92-1032.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 10, 1992.

Before LOGAN, MOORE and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Rule 42(b), Fed.R.App.P., and the stipulation submitted by the parties, this appeal has been settled and is hereby dismissed as moot. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction entered on November 6, 1991, *reported at*777 F.Supp. 844 (D.Colo.1991), and the order modifying the preliminary injunction entered on January 13, 1992. The district court is further directed to dismiss the complaint. *United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,*340 U.S. 36, 39-40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106-107, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); *Beattie v. United States,*949 F.2d 1092, 1095 (10th Cir.1991); *Tosco Corp. v. Hodel,*826 F.2d 948 (10th Cir.1987).

Each party shall bear its own costs and the mandate shall issue forthwith.
Exhibit
10.18
  
     Salary:
 Stock:
 Bonus:




---



##### 



Benefits:
 Expenses:
 Termination
 nolo contendere
  (i)
    
    A material diminution in your base salary, unless such reduction
is made pursuant to an across-the-board reduction of the base salaries of all
executive officers of Onyx of not more than ten percent (10%); or(ii)
    
    A change in your business location of more than thirty-five (35) miles
from Onyxs principal executive office as of the date of this letter agreement; or,(iii)
    
    Any material breach by Onyx of any provision of this offer letter
agreement.




---



##### 



Notwithstanding the foregoing, in order to qualify as Constructive Termination,
you must submit to Onyx a written notice, within ninety (90) days after the initial
occurrence of any of the foregoing actions or events, describing the applicable actions
or events, and provide Onyx with at least thirty (30) days from its receipt of your
written notice in which to cure such actions or events prior to termination of your
employment, and provided that your employment must terminate no later than twelve (12)
months after the applicable actions or events described in (i) and (ii) above.




---



##### 








---



##### 



Expenses:
 Termination th




---



##### 



nolo contendere
  (i)
    
    A material diminution in your base salary, unless such reduction is made
pursuant to an across-the-board reduction of the base salaries of all executive
officers of the Company of not more than ten percent (10%); or(ii)
    
    A change in your business location that increases your one way commute by
more than thirty five (35) miles from the length of your commute on the date of the
Offer Letter; or(iii)
    
    Any material breach by the Company of any provision of the Offer Letter (as
amended).




---



##### 



CIRCULAR 230 DISCLAIMER
  /s/ Michael Kauffman
Signature
    
    
    
    December 30, 2009
Date
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003
    /s/ Joseph SciroccoJoseph
Scirocco Chief Financial OfficerSeptember 9, 2008
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08006**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 

### x 08006\08006_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 08006\08006_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### x 08006\08006_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08006\08006_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08006\08006_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 08006\Certification Statement Plant ID 08006.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 08006\Supporting Documentation\08006_Plant Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 08006\Supporting Documentation\08006_Water Balance Diagram (GAS).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 08006\Supporting Documentation\08006_Water Balance Diagram (OIL).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1742

To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 to exempt minor parties from liability under the

Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9, 1996

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to exempt minor

parties from liability under the Act, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Minor Party Liability

5 Relief Act of 1996’’.
2

•S 1742 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MINOR PARTY LIABILITY.

2 Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Re3 sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9607)

4 is amended—

5 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘of this sec6 tion’’ and inserting ‘‘and the limitation in subsection

7 (n)’’; and

8 (2) by adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(n) MINOR PARTIES.—

10 ‘‘(1) NO LIABILITY.—Except as provided in

11 paragraph (2), a person (other than the United

12 States or a department, agency, or instrumentality

13 of the United States) shall not be liable under this

14 section for costs or damages at a facility (other than

15 a facility that is owned by the United States and

16 listed on the National Priorities List) if—

17 ‘‘(A) the liability of the person with respect

18 to the facility is based solely on paragraph (3)

19 or (4) of subsection (a); and

20 ‘‘(B) the person arranged for disposal or

21 treatment of, or transport for disposal or treat22 ment or accepted for transport for disposal or

23 treatment of—

24 ‘‘(i) 110 gallons or less of liquid mate25 rial containing a hazardous substance or

26 pollutant or contaminant; or
3

•S 1742 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) 200 pounds or less of solid mate2 rials containing a hazardous substance or

3 pollutant or contaminant;

4 or such greater or lesser amount as the Admin5 istrator may determine by regulation.

6 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) does not

7 apply to a person with respect to a facility if—

8 ‘‘(A) the material of which the person ar9 ranged for disposal, treatment, or transport has

10 contributed or may contribute significantly to

11 the costs of response at the facility; or

12 ‘‘(B) the person failed to respond fully to

13 an information request or administrative sub14 poena by the United States.’’.

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 12, 2018

No. 04-18-00114-CR

Kristi COLLINS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-09-180-CRW

The Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After we granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file the brief, 

Appellant’s brief was due on September 26, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). After the brief 

was due, Appellant filed a second motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file the brief. 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED; the brief is due on October 26, 2018. 

Any further motions for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 12th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EX-10.(a)




			
	



	 	Exhibit 10(a)

 TO: [PARTICIPANT NAME] 
 PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ 

RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT (RS-00_NED) 
 The Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (“Committee”) of Parker-Hannifin Corporation (“Company”) has awarded you the following number of restricted
shares of Company Common Stock (“Shares”) under the Parker-Hannifin Corporation Amended and Restated 2004 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Incentive Plan (“Plan”) and subject to the Parker-Hannifin Corporation Non-Employee
Directors’ Restricted Stock Award Terms and Conditions (RS-00_NED) (“Terms and Conditions”): 
  

					
	 Issue Date
	  	Number of Shares	 
	 [Grant Date]
	  	 	[Number Granted	] 

 Vesting Date. Except as otherwise provided in the Terms and Conditions, the restrictions on the Shares will
lapse on the date of the next Annual Shareholders’ Meeting of the Company that occurs after the Issue Date (“Vesting Date”). 

Your Action Items. Please take the following actions: 
  

	•	 	 Before you accept your grant, click on the links below to review the Terms and Conditions and the Plan, which govern this award.



  

	•	 	 Accept the Terms and Conditions and execute this Agreement by clicking on the “Accept” button below. 



 

	•	 	 Inform the Company of any change in address or contact information, as necessary. 



Non-Employee Directors’ Restricted Stock Award Terms and Conditions (RS-00_NED) 

Amended and Restated 2004 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Incentive Plan 

To view the most recent Annual Report, please click here 
 To view the most recent Proxy Statement, please click here 
 To view the 2004
Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan Prospectus, please click here
#### James Vincent BEASLEY, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth *of*VIRGINIA; Warden, Coffeewood Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-7399.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2002.

Decided Feb. 3, 2003.

James Vincent Beasley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

James Vincent Beasley, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under *195Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v.*Director; *Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 12, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on September 16, 2002. Because Beasley failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Beasley’s Motion for Limited Remand. 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.*
#### Harprit SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-70288.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 22, 2003.

Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Harprit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (the “Convention”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *See Castro-Espinosa v. Ashcroft,*257 F.3d 1130, 1131 n. 1 (9th Cir.2001) (order). We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence and will uphold it unless the evidence compels a contrary result. *Singhr-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999). Because the BIA adopted the reasoning of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and added its own reasons for denial, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995). We deny the petition for review.

Although the BIA did not identify any valid grounds to deny Singh’s appeal, the IJ provided specific, cogent reasons to support an adverse credibility finding by identifying aspects of Singh’s inconsistent testimony that went to the heart of his claims. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). The denial of Singh’s applications for asylum and withholding were therefore supported by substantial evidence. *See id.*at 1043-45.

We decline to review the denial of Singh’s application for relief under the Convention because he does not challenge that ruling on appeal. *See id.*at 1045.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Leslie WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, The City of Raleigh, North Carolina Police Department; City of Raleigh, The City of Raleigh, North Carolina; John Knox, in his official and individual capacities; T.L. Newman, in his official and individual capacities; Sergeant Bryant, in his official and individual capacities; C.D. Amidon, in his official and individual capacities; J.B. Johnson, in his official and individual capacities; Charlie Jacobs, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-2048.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.

Decided Feb. 4, 2003.

Leslie Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Leslie Wright appeals the district court’s orders dismissing as frivolous her civil suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Wright v. Raleigh Police Dep’t,*No. CA-02-392-5-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 2002). 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.*
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subscription (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Vialta, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the financial requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

Dated: August 13, 2004                            By: /s/Didier Pietri
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Didier Pietri
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
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 Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

Thursday, January 25, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE: 

Hybrid Meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th Floor) and virtual.

# Note:

                        for those attending the meeting in person, current COVID-19 safety protocols for visitors, which are based on the CDC COVID-19 hospital admission level in Washington, DC will be updated on the commission's contact page by the Monday before the meeting. See the contact page at                         *https://www.fec.gov/​contact/​.*                         If you would like to virtually access the meeting, see the instructions below.                    

# STATUS:

                        This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the above-referenced guidance regarding the COVID-19 hospital admission level and corresponding health and safety procedures. To access the meeting virtually, go to the commission's website                         *www.fec.gov*                         and click on the banner to be taken to the meeting page.                    

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Draft Advisory Opinion 2023-11: VoteDown PAC

                    Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Madison Project, Inc. (A21-11)                          ( print page 3926)    

Management and Administrative Matters

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

                        Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040 or                         *secretary@fec.gov,*                         at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.                    

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Laura E. Sinram,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2024-01268 Filed 1-18-24; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1669 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1669

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Jackson, 
 Mississippi, as the ``G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery Department of Veterans 
                       Affairs Medical Center''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, 
              JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI.

    (a) Name.--The Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in 
Jackson, Mississippi, shall be known and designated as the ``G.V. 
(Sonny) Montgomery Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''. Any 
reference to such medical center in any law, regulation, map, document, 
record, or other paper of the United States shall be considered to be a 
reference to the G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery Department of Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect at noon on 
January 3, 1997.

            Passed the Senate September 10, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1669

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Jackson, 
 Mississippi, as the ``G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery Department of Veterans 
                       Affairs Medical Center''.
```