alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2345

___________________________

Kyle Greene; Krystle Lynn Greene

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Meeker County Department of Human Services (DHS)

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: January 31, 2024

Filed: February 5, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kyle and Krystle Greene appeal the district court’s1 denial of their Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging the dismissal of their pro se complaint. 

1The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.
Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we

conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)

motion. See Middleton v. McDonald, 388 F.3d 614, 616 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of

review); Chester v. St. Louis Hous. Auth., 820 F.2d 259, 260 (8th Cir. 1987) (per

curiam) (stating that Rule 60(b) provides for relief only under exceptional

circumstances and is not intended to substitute for a timely appeal). Accordingly, we

affirm and deny the Greenes’ motion to modify the caption as moot. See 8th Cir. R.

47B. 

______________________________

-2-
EX-4.12



 Exhibit 4.12 

EXECUTION VERSION 

JOINDER AGREEMENT 

July 23, 2016 
 Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V. 

Attn. Jeff Carr, EVP & CFO 
 Provincialeweg 11 

1506 MA Zaandam 
 The Netherlands 

with a copy to: 
 Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V. 

Attn. GSO Legal 
 Telephone: +31 88 659 911 

Email: gso.legal@aholddelhaize.com

 Attention: Gerbrand van Bokhorst 
 and 

Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V. 
 Attn. GSO Treasury 

Telephone: +41 22 592 8065 
 Facsimile: +41 22 592 8034 

Email: mark.rutteman@aholddelhaize.com

 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Reference is
made to that certain cross-guarantee agreement, dated as of May 21, 2007 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Cross-Guarantee Agreement”), by and among Koninklijke Ahold N.V.
(“Ahold”), a public limited liability company (naamloze vennootschap) incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands and having its official seat (statutaire zetel) in Zaandam, the Netherlands (as successor in
interest to Delhaize Group NV/SA, a limited liability company (société anonyme) organized under the laws of the Kingdom of Belgium; Ahold in such capacity, “Delhaize
Successor”), Delhaize America, Inc., a corporation (now Delhaize America, LLC) wholly-owned by Ahold and organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina (“Delhaize America”), and the other direct and
indirect wholly-owned Subsidiaries of Ahold Delhaize from time to time parties thereto (collectively with Delhaize Successor and Delhaize America, the “Guarantors” and individually, a “Guarantor”).

 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Cross-Guarantee Agreement. 

This letter supplements the Cross-Guarantee Agreement and is delivered on behalf of the undersigned, Delhaize Le Lion / De Leeuw B.V. (the
“New Guarantor”), pursuant to 







 
Section 12.1 of the Cross-Guarantee Agreement. The New Guarantor hereby agrees to be bound as a Guarantor by all of the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in the Cross-Guarantee
Agreement as of the date hereof. Without limiting the foregoing, the New Guarantor hereby makes each of the representations and warranties and agrees to each of the covenants applicable to Guarantors contained in the Cross-Guarantee Agreement. 

This letter shall become effective upon the ratification (bekrachtiging) by the New Guarantor of its execution of this letter. 

THIS LETTER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the New Guarantor has caused this letter to be executed and delivered by its
duly authorized officer as of the date first above written. 
  
  

 

									
	 DELHAIZE LE LION / DE LEEUW B.V.,

as Subsidiary Co-Issuer

			
		 	By:	 	 Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize N.V.,

its proposed sole managing director, in turn represented by:

				
		 		 		 	   /s/ G.W. van Bokhorst

					
		 		 		 	  Name:	 	G.W. van Bokhorst
					
		 		 		 	  Title:	 	Proxy Holder


  
  

[Signature Page – Joinder Agreement (Cross-Guarantee)]
#### Randolph WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 33773.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 8, 1961.

*929No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery with firearms; the punishment, 20 years.

In view of our disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts will not be deemed necessary.

The indictment is fundamentally defective in that nowhere therein is there a description of the property taken other than “corporeal personal property.” Without a further description, the accused was not put on notice as to what he was alleged to have taken by force. Oakley v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 630, 323 S.W.2d 43, and the cases there cited, calls for the reversal of the conviction and a dismissal of the prosecution under the present indictment. See also Holland v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 384, 10 S.W.2d 561, and 33 Tex.Dig. «=17(3).

It is so ordered.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20006

AIR BOB, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GE ENGINE SERVICES CORPORATE AVIATION, INC.,

doing business as Garrett Aviation Services,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:03-CV-1854

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Air Bob, Inc., sued GE Engine Services Corporate Aviation, Inc., doing

business as Garret Aviation Services, alleging faulty repair of the plaintiff’s airUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20006

2

craft. In the bench trial, the district court granted a defense motion for what the

parties refer to as a “directed verdict,” concluding “that Air Bob has failed to present any evidence of a duty owed by Garrett that it breached.” That order is correct, essentially for the reasons set forth in the memorandum and order entered

November 6, 2006.

After entry of judgment, the district court awarded costs to defendant as

the prevailing party. Plaintiff appeals the award to the extent it includes the

cost of videotaped depositions. Defendant properly acknowledged in oral argument that the law in this circuit is that such costs are not taxable. See, e.g., Migis v. Pearle Vision, 135 F.3d 1041, 1049 (5th Cir. 1998). Defendant challenges

that caselaw as erroneous, but we have no authority to overrule previous panel

decisions. The award in this case is in error.

The judgment granting a directed verdict is AFFIRMED. The order

awarding costs is VACATED and REMANDED for recalculation in accordance

with this opinion.
DENIED and Opinion Filed August 27, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 21
- 00728
- CV IN RE AMY HAGEN , Relator Original Proceeding from the 469th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 469
- 54042
- 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Relator Amy Hagen has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from the trial court’s August 18, 2021 order holdin g her in contempt and committing her to the county jail for twelve days. We deny relief.
R elator must file with the petition a sufficient record to establish the right to relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rule 52.7(a)(2) requires the relator to file with the petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered into evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connectio n with the matter complained.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a)( 2 ).– 2

–

Relator’s petition and the trial court’s order indicate that before holding relator in contempt, the trial court conducted a hearing on Movant’s Second Amended Motion on Enforcement of Possession or Access and Counseling Orders

. The petition indicates the hearing began on August 17, 2021 and concluded on August 18, 2021. The trial court’s contempt order states “[t]he record of testimony was duly reported by the court reporter for the 469th District Court.” Relator’s petition is not accompanied by a reporter ’s record of the evidentiary hearing held in this matter. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a)( 2 ). Without a reporter’s record from the contempt hearing , we cannot conclude relator has filed a sufficient record to obtain habeas relief. See id .; In re Norvell , 610 S.W.3d 598, 599

– 600 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (dismissing mandamus proceeding for failure to file tra nscript of evidentiary hearing); see also In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 75 9 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief for failure to meet rule 52 procedural requirements); In re Daniels , No. 05

- 20

- 00501

- CV, 2020 WL 2715406, at *1

– 2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas May 26, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying habeas and mandamus relief for , among other deficiencies, failure to file reporter’s record of contempt hearing or statement that no testimony was taken).– 3

–

We deny relator’s petition f or writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to filing for further relief with a proper record.

210728f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III/ / BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Kathleen P. Bloch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Langer, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Langer, Inc.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Dated:  March
      24, 2009
            /s/  Kathleen P.
      BlochKathleen
      P. Bloch, Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
#### Vell Keith SMITHERS, Petitioner, v. Hon. Thomas J. KNIGHT, Judge. Jefferson Circuit Court, Criminal Branch, First Div., Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 1, 1961.

*874Guy C. Shearer, Louisville, for petitioner.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

This is an original action seeking a writ prohibiting the Honorable Thomas J. Knight, a judge of the Jefferson Circuit Court, from proceeding further in an action pending in that court and from permitting agents from New York to remove the plaintiff from the jurisdiction of this state pending an appeal from a judgment denying habeas corpus. A temporary writ was entered on August 18, 1961. Motions for a stay of proceedings and for bail pending the appeal were overruled. Motions to reconsider those orders were subsequently filed and have not been disposed of.

The primary case, that is, the appeal from the judgment denying habeas corpus, has been decided today, the judgment being affirmed. See Smithers v. Bindner, Ky., 351 S.W.2d 872. This original action has thereby become moot. Upon that ground the complaint herein is dismissed.
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 Annual Report of Park Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2010 (the Report), the undersigned, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



/S/    VICTOR E.
CAPUTOVictor E. CaputoTreasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary


March 31, 2010
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Syms Corp (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended February 26, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marcy Syms, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ Marcy SymsMarcy SymsChairman and Chief Executive OfficerSyms CorpMay 13, 2011
# S **upreme C**  **ourt of**  **T exas** 

══════════ No. 23

- 0 597

══════════
J

- W Power Company , Petitioner ,

v
. Henderson County Appraisal District , Respondent

═══════════════════════════ ══ ══════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Twel f th District of Texas

═══════════════════════════ ══ ══════════
PER CURIAM
Justice Young did not participate in the decision.
The petition for review is granted. Without hearing oral argument, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 59.1, the court of appeals’ judgment is reversed in light of J

- W Power Co. v. Sterling County Appraisal District , ___ S.W.3d ___, 2024 WL 2869325 (Tex. June 7, 2024). The case is remanded to the court of appeals to consider issues it did not reach.

OPIN ION DELIVERED: June 21, 2024
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 549

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the

construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 14 (legislative day, MARCH 6), 1995

Mr. BUMPERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of three hydroelectric projects

in the State of Arkansas.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

4 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of

5 the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), the Federal En6 ergy Regulatory Commission, upon the request of the li7 censee for FERC projects numbered 4204, 4660, and

8 4659 (and after reasonable notice), is authorized, in ac9 cordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public in10 terest requirements of section 13 and the Commission’s
2

S 549 IS

1 procedures under such section, to extend the time required

2 for commencement of construction of the projects for a

3 maximum of three consecutive two-year periods. This sec4 tion shall take effect for the project upon the expiration

5 of the extension (issued by the Commission under section

6 13) of the period required for commencement of such

7 project.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cytogen Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Michael D. Becker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 16, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael D. Becker                                  
|                      |  |  |  | Michael D. Becker President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HEALTHWATCH, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000725627
<NAME> HEALTHWATCH, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,264
<SECURITIES>                                 3,935,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,698
<INVENTORY>                                     35,477
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,288,073
<PP&E>                                         318,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                 303,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,611,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          540,534
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,501
<COMMON>                                       107,137
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,956,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,611,990
<SALES>                                        551,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               551,682
<CGS>                                          193,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,442,566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               969,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,324
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,054,695)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,054,695)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.98)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                         RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Olympic Resources Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Bryce
W. Rhodes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael B. Young, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each certifies for the purpose of complying
with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the Untied
States Code, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

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


Dated: October 14, 2003                              /s/ Bryce W. Rhodes
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Bryce W. Rhodes
                                                     President, CEO and Director


                                                     /s/ Michael B. Young
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Michael B. Young
                                                     Chief Financial Officer,
                                                     Treasurer and Controller

                                       16
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58076-58077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24036]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

STATE DEPARTMENT

[Public Notice: 7550]

International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice; 
Closed Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2), the Department of State 
announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) 
to take place on October 6, 2011, at the Department of State, 
Washington, DC.
    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. App. 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that 
this Board meeting will be closed to the public in the interest of 
national defense and foreign policy because the Board will be reviewing 
and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with Executive 
Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with 
a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms 
control, disarmament, political-military affairs, and international 
security and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this 
meeting will include classified discussions related to the Board's 
ongoing studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding arms 
control, international security, nuclear proliferation, and diplomacy.
    For more information, contact Richard W. Hartman II, Executive 
Director of the International Security Advisory Board,

[[Page 58077]]

Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 736-4290.

    Dated: August 26, 2011.
Richard W. Hartman II,
Executive Director, International Security Advisory Board, U.S. 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-24036 Filed 9-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
```