alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50874

JOHN EDWARD HOLMES,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CV-124

Before DENNIS, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Edward Holmes, Texas prisoner # 1933182, moves this court for a 

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 

motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. Holmes filed the § 2254

application to challenge his 15-year sentence for sexual assault. Holmes also 

requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50874 Document: 00514764352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2018
No. 17-50874

2

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, 

if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). At the time 

Holmes filed his notice of appeal, there was no “final order” for Holmes to 

appeal and for this court to consider. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. Holmes did not file a timely notice of appeal following the district 

court’s orders denying § 2254 relief or the post-judgment motions to amend his 

§ 2254 application. Because federal habeas proceedings are civil in nature, see 

Archer v. Lynaugh, 821 F.2d 1094, 1096 (5th Cir. 1987), a timely notice of 

appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 

(2007); see Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 2011). We thus 

lack jurisdiction over the instant case.

Accordingly, Holmes’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and 

his motions are DENIED as MOOT.

 Case: 17-50874 Document: 00514764352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2018
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.21

MAR-21-96        THU 11:59        JHL HOLDINGS INC          FAX NO. 13104518518


March 21, 1996


Mr. Marvin Feigenbaum
c/o Goldstein, Axelrod & DiGioia
399 Lexington Avenue - 18th Floor
New York, NY  10017

Dear Marvin:

I have been unable to contact Sohail Masood.  Nevertheless, my opinion is that
bondholders would be willing to tender their bonds upon receiving a revised
offer that compensates them for the delay in completing the transaction.

The old offer was for bondholders to receive $580 cash and 16 shares of fully
registered stock.  It also provided for additional interest in the event the
transaction was not completed in 180 days (September 3, 1995).

In keeping consistent with this theme, a revised offer that incorporates this
would be $635 in cash and 16 shares of stock.  In the event CompCare wanted to
pay the additional $55 in stock (which would have to be based on the same
formula price as the 16 shares).  That would make the revised alternative offer
of $580 in cash and 23 1/3 shares per bond.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                          Old Offer                New Offer or Stock Option/Offer
                          ---------                -------------------------------
         <S>              <C>                      <C>                     <C>
         Cash             $580                     $635                    $580
         Shares           16 shares                16 shares               23 1/3 shares
</TABLE>


Sincerely,

/s/ JAY H. LUSTIG

Jay H. Lustig

P.S.  This is assuming a transaction could be completed by May 1, 1996.
Anything later would need to reflect more interest.
Exhibit 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

         The undersigned executive officer of PFS Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-QSB for the period
ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                                               /s/Stuart M. Suggs
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Name: Stuart M . Suggs
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 14, 2002
##### 



Exhibit 15.2
   
     Form 10-Q Form S-3 No. 333-112904) Form S-8 (No. 33-56971, 333-81383, 333-73098, 333-85572, 333-109877, 333-109879 333-142651).
FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

June 24, 2015

ABELACOSTA, CLERK

of* • •

Cause No. PD-1514-14

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ronnie Leon Dabney,

Appellant

State of Texas,

Appellee

PD-1514-14

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 6/23/2015 4:31:18 PM

Accepted 6/24/2015 10:18:49 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

On Petition for Discretionary Review from the Court of Appeals,

Second District of Texas No. 02-12-00530-CR

State's Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief

Maureen Shelton John Gillespie

Criminal District Attorney First Asst. Criminal District Attorney

Wichita County, Texas Wichita County, Texas

State Bar No. 24076904 State Bar No. 24083252

Maureen.Shelton@co.wichita.tx.us John Gillespie(5>co.wichita.tx.us

900 Seventh Street

Wichita Falls, Texas 76301

(940) 766-8113 phone

(940) 716-8530 fax
To the Honorable Justices of this Court:

Pursuant to Rule 70.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the

State asks for leave to file its Reply Brief.

The State seeks to file a Reply Brief to address points addressed by

Appellant's brief including (1) that Appellant's sufficiency argument was not

preserved by a cross-petition nor addressed by the court of appeals, so it is

not properly before this Court; (2) to address Appellant's argument that the

form of the proceedings dictate the nature of the proceedings (i.e. Appellant's

claim that evidence offered in the State's case-in-chief cannot be rebuttal

evidence); (3) to address factual assertions by Appellant that are not

supported by the record; and (4) to fully address and respond to the

arguments addressed by Appellant (which are outlined in the State's Reply

Brief).

Wherefore, the State of Texas prays this Court to allow the State to file

a reply brief in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 70.4.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/John R. Gillespie

John R. Gillespie

First Assistant District Attorney

Wichita County, Texas

900 7th Street Room 351

Wichita Falls, Texas 76301

(940) 766-8113 phone

(940) 716-8530 fax
State Bar No. 24010053

John.Gillespie@co.wichita.tx.us

Attorney for State of Texas

Certificate of Conference

I certify that I attempted to contact Mark Barber by phone on June 23,

2015, to see if he was opposed or unopposed to this motion, but that he did

not return the call.

/s/John Gillespie

John Gillespie

Certificate of Compliance

I certify that this document contains 160 words. The body text is in 14

point font.

/s/John Gillespie

John Gillespie

Certificate of Service

I do certify that on June 23, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above

document has been electronically forwarded to Mark Barber, counsel for

Ronnie Leon Dabney on appeal, via electronic service to

mbarberlaw(5),aol.com, and to the State Prosecuting Attorney, Lisa McMinn,

at information(S)spa.texas.gov.

/s/John Gillespie

John Gillespie
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Nathaniel HUGHES, Appellant.

No. 02-2780.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 15, 2003.

Decided Feb. 3, 2003.

Before BOWMAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

After the District Court1 denied Nathaniel Hughes’s motion to suppress evidence found during a protective sweep of his girlfriend’s apartment that took place while police officers were there to arrest him pursuant to a warrant, Hughes entered an unconditional guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. Two months later, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the District Court denied. In this appeal, Hughes presents one issue: whether the search of his girlfriend’s apartment was unconstitutional.2

Because an unconditional guilty plea forecloses a defendant’s right to challenge any of the prosecution’s case, jurisdictional challenges excepted, we cannot review the constitutionality of the search of his girlfriend’s apartment. *See United States v. Jennings,*12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir.1994). Hughes could have preserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion had he entered a conditional guilty plea, *see*Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), but he failed to do so.

Even if Hughes had not waived his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion by entering an unconditional plea of guilty, there is no merit to his claim that the search of his girlfriend’s apartment violated his Fourth Amendment rights. We have carefully reviewed this claim and are satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, the protective sweep of the *400apartment was entirely reasonable. Given that Hughes was known to be linked to a violent street gang and that his girlfriend’s apartment was unfamiliar territory to the officers, the officers had good reason to be concerned that another person or persons might be in the apartment posing a danger to the officers’ safety. *See Maryland v. Buie,*494 U.S. 325, 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990).

By entering an unconditional guilty plea, Hughes waived his right to challenge the denial of his suppression motion. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

2

. Hughes has not appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
**Exhibit 99.7**
**SCHEDULE II – EXTENDICARE INC VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS**(thousands of dollars)                           **Additions**  **Additions**             **Provisions**  **(Subtractions)**  **Subtractions**      **Balance at**  **for Losses**  **from**  **Written off**  **Balance** **Allowance for** **Beginning**  **on Accounts**  **Foreign**  **Net of**  **at End** **Doubtful Accounts** **of Period**  **Receivable**  **Exchange**  **Recoveries**  **of Period**  Year ended:                    December 31, 2002  24,475   17,705   (259)  25,697   16,224 December 31, 2003  16,224   15,672   (2,938)  12,536   16,422 December 31, 2004  16,422   14,883   (1,004)  16,588   13,713
Exhibit 4.7


 








 


Addendum No. 1


 


	to the lease agreement dated	15 January 2013	 
	Property	Falknerstrasse 2/4, 4001 Basel	 
	 	Office space on the 3rd floor / Ref. No. 21003.01.430010	 
	between	Assetimmo Immobilien Anlagestiftung, Zurich	“Lessor”
	represented by	PRIVERA AG,	“Agent”
	 	Mühlematt Shopping	 
	 	Mühlemattstrasse 22	 
	 	4104 Oberwil	 
	and	Auris Medical AG	“Lessee”
	 	Falknerstrasse 2/4	 
	 	4001 Basel	 
	Regarding	Termination of lease	 
	 	as of 31 December 2016	 





 


By way of amendment to the Lease Agreement, the following is
agreed:


 


		1.	Termination of lease 






The existing/current lease
based on the lease agreement dated 15 January 2013 between the abovementioned Parties is terminated by mutual agreement as of 31
December 2016.


 


		2.	Special provisions 






This Addendum No. 1 does not become legally valid
unless and until Scope Solutions AG signs a lease agreement for a lease commencing as of 1 January 2017 for the abovementioned
office space as the subsequent tenant.


 


		3.	Further contractual provisions 






In all other respects, the provisions
of the lease agreement of 15 January 2013 apply.


 


		4.	Official copies of Agreement 






The present Addendum No. 1
is issued and signed in two counterparts with the same wording, with the Lessee and the Lessor each receiving one counterpart thereof.


 


	Oberwil, 1 December 2016 / PKUM	 	 
	 	 	 
	For the Lessor: The Agent	 	The Lessee
	PRIVERA AG	 	 	Auris Medical AG
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	[signature]	[signature]	 	[signature]
	 	 	 	Anne Sabine Zoller
	 	 	 	General Counsel



 




 


	PRIVERA AG	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Management	HOA	Center Management	 


	Retail	Leasing Management	Construction Management	V98 V2 20150922
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Immune Mechanisms at the Maternal-Fetal Interface (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         February 28-29, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G54, Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Hitendra S. Chand, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G54, Rockville, MD 20852,  (240) 627-3245,                         *hiten.chand@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 22, 2024.

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-01570 Filed 1-25-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
SICKBAY.COM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                             (FORMERLY XETAL, INC.)

                                   FORM 10-K

                               DECEMBER 31, 1999

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Sickbay.com, Inc. and Subsidiaries (formerly Xetal, Inc.)

     We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Sickbay.com, Inc. (formerly Xetal, Inc.) and Subsidiary as of December 31, 1999,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders'
equity and cash flows for the period February 24, 1999 (inception) to December
31, 1999. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit.

     We consent to the inclusion of our independent auditors report with respect
to such financial statements in the inclusion of the Company's 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1999.




/s/ Linder & Linder
-------------------

Linder & Linder
Certified Public Accountants
Dix Hills, New York
December 15, 1999

Dated: April 4, 2000
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0438

_________________ BILLY SETER,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Billy Seter, to all counsel of record , and to the Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe , District Ju dge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 20 2022

07/20/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0438
EXHIBIT 31.2
  CERTIFICATION
    OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
    Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002
    Form 10-Q
      Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e)) Rules 13a-15(f) 15d-15(f))
                November 20, 2008Date

By

/s/ Michael J. RispoliMichael
    J. Rispoli

Chief Financial Officer,
    Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors, LLC,
    the Manager of NNN 2003 Value Fund, LLC
    (principal financial officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ANNUAL
REPORT AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                              86
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                       658
<INVENTORY>                                     44,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,902
<PP&E>                                         131,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                  63,251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,580
<BONDS>                                        122,710
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,178)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,561
<SALES>                                        163,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,444
<CGS>                                          125,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,726
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,496
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,496
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,496
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
November 11, 1997

STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
ADDRESSEE ONLY

Michael R. Boyce
10600 Highland Lane
Olathe, KS 66061


Dear Mike:

You have  been,  and will  continue  to be, a key  player  in the  current  sale
process.  We truly appreciate your efforts to attain the best possible value for
our shareholders.

It is therefore my pleasure to inform you that we have received  Board  approval
to offer you a Sale Incentive Bonus.  Specifically,  in the event of a change of
control in the ownership of the Company (other than a public offering),  whereby
Tony and I collectively  sell 80% or more of our current  holdings of HCG and in
recognition of your  contributions to this process,  you will receive a one-time
payment of $650,000, payable within five (5) days after the Closing Date.

On behalf of our shareholders, thank you in advance for all your efforts.

Sincerely,

/s/ D. George Harris


<PAGE>
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00 811

- CR Ray Roland BERNAL , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 1 75 th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010CR10961 Honorable Mary D. Rom á n , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 4, 2012
DISMISSED The trial court’s certification in t his appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and a greed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the underlying case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must b e dismissed if a04

- 11

- 00811

- CR

- 2

- certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d). Because the trial court’s certification does not show that the appellant has a right of appeal , rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 199

To repeal certain provisions of law relating to trading with Indians.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 11 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

A BILL

To repeal certain provisions of law relating to trading with

Indians.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL.

4 Section 437 of title 18, United States Code, is re5 pealed.

Æ