alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Virginia COLEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28439.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 27, 1956.

No attorney for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $250.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed, and no motion for rehearing will be entertained in this case.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of AmericanWest Bancorporation



|                                 |  |                        |  |                                              
|-------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary               |  | State of Incorporation |  | Other Names Under Which Business is Conducted
|AmericanWest Bank                |  | Washington             |  | Precision Bank                               
|AmericanWest Statutory Trust I   |  | Connecticut            |  |                                              
|Columbia Trust Statutory Trust I |  | Connecticut            |  |                                              
|AmericanWest Capital Trust II    |  | Delaware               |  |                                              

AmericanWest Bancorporation owns 100% of the voting stock of each entity listed above.
#### Frances Joan PALMER, Appellant, v. William Harrison PALMER, Appellee.

No. 14011.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

Dec. 5, 1962.

Travis Smith, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

John R. Haas, Corpus Christi, for appel-lee.

MURRAY, Chief TuStifcfc'.

Chi August IS, 1961, in'Cause No. 72655 oti'' the ' docket' of the District Court of ' Niieces County, Texas,' William Harrison Palmer Was granted a divorce from Frances Joan Palmer, based on desertioii for more than seven years, and ordered to pay her, for their two minor children, William Har-risqp. Palmer,-Jr., a boy nine-years:.-of age, and-Frances Joan-¡Palmer, .a.-girl-:-sever»'¡ years pf age, the-sum of $58.55 each, or-, a. total of. $117.10, per month for the two-¡ children.

On January 17, 1962, some'five''montlís' later,.William Plarr.ison Palmer filed a motion- in the same: cause; -seeking -a reduction' in-, his payment .for child support; On-Feb-rüary. 12, 1962,- after-.- a hearing, the trial-court entered an order reducing his payment to $77.10 for the support of his two minor children. From this order his former wife, Frances Joan Palmer,( has prosecuted this appeal.

The evidence shows that immediately aft-er William Harrison Palmer was divorced he married a second wife who had three small children, and is now pregnant, is under a doctor’s care, and soon will have a fourth child, but the parties stipulated that this1 second marriage was not to be taken into consideration in determining whether or not the child support for Palmer’s two children by his first marriage should be reduced,'' and this stipulation seems to bé in keeping with the law. Brito v. Brito, Tex.Civ.App., 346 S.W.2d 133.

Appellee testified that he is a First Class Petty Officer, E6, and that his pay grade goes up through E9. He is apparently making the same salary now that he was making at the time of his divorce. His only complaint is that his take home pay is less. The Government lately discovered that he had been overpaid the sum of $292.00, and is requiring him to pay this back at the rate of $22.00 per month. This amount is taken out of his pay each month. He is being transferred from land service to sea service. He has heretofore been permitted to *915draw $31.00 per month commissary rations. While he is on sea duty he will receive his meals on the ship in lieu of this $31.00. Thus, he says, his take home pay has been reduced $53.00 per month. On this basis the trial court reduced his payment for child support from $117.10 to $77.10 per month, a reduction of $40.00. Appellee admits that when he is on sea duty he will receive a pay increase of $22.00 per month, but this increase will not start for a period of four months, as he must go to a school for four months before he actually goes on sea duty. After about thirteen months he will have repaid his debt of $292.00, then the $22.00 will no longer be taken from his pay each month.

The evidence did not justify the reduction in the amount of child support, and the court erred in reducing the same from $117.10 to $77.10 per month.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 2/15/2012

Sample Number: 120601-001 Date Collected: 02/07/2012 08:00 Date Received: 2/8/2012

1st Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 318 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/13/2012 11:19 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 120601-002 Date Collected: 02/07/2012 08:00 Date Received: 2/8/2012

2nd Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 4.30 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/13/2012 11:24 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 120601-003 Date Collected: 02/07/2012 08:00 Date Received: 2/8/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 1.73 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/13/2012 11:28 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 120601-004 Date Collected: 02/08/2012 08:15 Date Received: 2/8/2012

1st Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 364 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/13/2012 11:33 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 120601-005 Date Collected: 02/08/2012 08:15 Date Received: 2/8/2012

2nd Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 4.65 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/13/2012 11:38 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 120601-006 Date Collected: 02/08/2012 08:15 Date Received: 2/8/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 1.52 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/13/2012 11:42 EPA 200.8

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 120601 Page 1 of 1
#### Frank GOOD et al., Appellants, v. Andy REYNOLDS, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 16, 1956.

L. C. Farley, Pikeville, for appellants.

Henry Stratton, Pikeville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on motion for an. appeal under KRS 21.080, and the only question at issue is a one-tenth undivided interest in real estate worth approximately $1,000.

We have reviewed the record, and conclude that the judgment is correct.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

542 

CAF 14-01821 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF JOEY J. AND ANGEL J. 

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

ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

ELEANOR J., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM D. BRODERICK, JR., ELMA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF

BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL).

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret

O. Szczur, J.), entered September 29, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to

Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated the parental rights

of respondent. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law 

§ 384-b, respondent mother appeals from an order terminating her

parental rights. On appeal, the mother challenges the representation

she received at the fact-finding hearing. We reject the mother’s

contention that she was denied effective assistance of counsel

inasmuch as she “did not demonstrate the absence of strategic or other

legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged shortcomings” (Matter of

Reinhardt v Hardison, 122 AD3d 1448, 1449 [internal quotation marks

omitted]; see Matter of Brown v Gandy, 125 AD3d 1389, 1390). Contrary

to the mother’s contention, “[i]neffectiveness may not ‘be inferred

merely because the attorney counseled [her] to admit the allegations

in the petition’ ” (Matter of Michael W., 266 AD2d 884, 884-885; see

Matter of Sean W. [Brittany W.], 87 AD3d 1318, 1319, lv denied 18 NY3d

802). 

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 10081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02880]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), 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, and the Determination of the Director, Office of 
Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, 
CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and 
Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)--SIP24-004, Gauging Men's Reaction 
to Relabeling of GG1 Prostate Cancer and Understanding of Pathology 
Reports.
    Date: May 8, 2024.
    Time: 10 a.m.-6 p.m., EDT.
    Place: Teleconference/Web Conference.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    For Further Information Contact: Natalie Brown, M.P.H., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and 
Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 
Buford Highway, Mailstop S106-3, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717. 
Telephone: (404) 639-4601; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#48060a3a273f267b082b2c2b662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="06484474697168354665626528616970">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of 
the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register 
notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee 
management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2024-02880 Filed 2-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 36, Orig.

No. 72-6831.

No. 72-6117.

No. 72-6204.

#### Texas *v.*Louisiana, Rothstein et al. *v.*Wyman, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York, et al., Owens *v.*United States, LeBrun *v.*Cupp, Penitentiary Superintendent,

410 U. S. 702;

*ante,*p. 921;

*ante,*p. 935; and

*ante,*p. 919. Petitions for rehearing denied.
AMENDMENT

                                     TO THE

                       SAFEGUARD HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC.

                                  401(k) PLAN


This  amendment  is  made  by  Safeguard  Health  Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter
referred  to  as the "Company") to the Safeguard Health Enterprises, Inc. 401(k)
Plan  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  "Plan").

WHEREAS,  the  Company  has  expressed  the desire to amend said Plan in certain
particulars  effective  immediately.

NOW  THEREFORE  RESOLVED,  the  Company  hereby  agrees  as  follows:

1.     Section  13.12  of  said  Plan  is  removed  in  its  entirety.





IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Company has executed this Amendment on the date shown
below.


By:  /s/  Ronald  I. Brendzel          Dated:  December 21, 2001
     ------------------------                  -----------------
     Authorized Signature


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32



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 Quarterly Report of Raybor Management, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Jeffrey D., Hoyal, Chief Executive Officer, and Noel M. Littlefield, 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:



| | (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/ Jeffrey D. Hoyal   
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 12, 2004      
|                       
|/s/ Noel M. Littlefield
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 12 , 2004     



This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
ALD

- 114 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 24

- 1054

___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. TYREE STRATTON, Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2

- 05

- cr - 00068

- 002 ) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 2, 2024 Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY

- REEVES, and NYGAARD , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed May 15, 2024 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM

* Th is disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

Tyree Stratton appeals th e District Court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. The procedural history of this case and the details of Stratton’s claims are well known to t he parties, set forth in the District Court’s order, and need not be discussed at length. In 2006, Stratton was sentenced to 260 months in prison after being found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and using and carrying a firearm in connection with a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v. Archer , 282 F. App’x 164, 169 (3d Cir. 2008). Stratton later filed a § 22 55 motion challenging his firearm conviction. He argued that armed bank robbery was no longer a crime of violence. The District Court denied the § 2255 motion but issued a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden v. United States , 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), invalidates armed bank robbery as a crime of violence. Stratton filed a notice of appeal. The parties were informed that we would consider taking summary action on the appeal. We have jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. We recently held that armed bank robbery is a crime of violence even after Borden

. See United States v. Jordan , 96 F.4 th 584, 594 (3d Cir. 2024). Thus, this appeal presents no substantial question, and summary affirmance is appropriate.3

For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. Stratton’s motion to stay the ruling is denied as moot.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Javier O. Lamoso,President of ClearComm, L.P., certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this annual report of ClearComm, L.P.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)                                Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)                               Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)                                Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)                                Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)                               Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: March 29, 2005

 
|   |   | /s/ Javier O.  Lamoso    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Javier O. Lamoso         |
|   |   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7020

JOHN DAVID SIMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections; CHARLES J. HARLAND, Chief

Dentist, Virginia Department of Corrections;

DR. KOPELEVE, Chief Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center, Medical Unit; OFFICER COCHRAN,

Security Official, Powhatan Correctional Center, and other unknown at this time,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-15-2)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 10, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John David Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp.

1997). Because Appellant did not demonstrate to the district court

that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies

were not available, the court's dismissal of the action was not an

abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the district court's order

but modify it to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to

Appellant's right to refile the action after exhaustion. 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 AS MODIFIED
#### Erwin TACKETT, Appellant, v. Joseph W. WOODHEAD, Agent of the Heirs of George Lonaker, Deceased, et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 10, 1958.

H. B. Best, Falmouth, for appellant.

W. Marvin Davis, Falmouth, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment entitling appellees to recover from appellant, Erwin Tackett, the sum of $1,025, plus 6% interest from February 14, 1955, together with the costs. This sum represents the loss sustained by appellees when appellant refused to accept a deed to real estate he had bid in at a public sale and it was necessary to resell the property. Appellant declined to close the deal because he contended the title was defective in that a lien of $815 existed against the property in favor of the Department of Welfare to secure old age assistance payments. This lien was not of record at the time appellant bid on the land.

The testimony of appellee, Joseph W. Woodhead, the administrator of the estate of the decedent-owner of the land and also the attorney in fact for the heirs of the decedent in the sale of the land, and also the person who auctioned off the land, was that he was charged by law as administrator to pay all the debts of the decedent and that he intended to settle the claim of the Department of Welfare out of the proceeds of the sale.

The jury held, under proper instructions, that appellant was legally bound to accept a deed to the land and that his refusal to do so subjected him to the damages claimed by appellees and embraced in their verdict. In this connection the jury found under an instruction which would give appellee, Woodhead, a reasonable time to clear the *845title to the property, since time was not of the essence of the contract in controversy.

We believe this action was correctly adjudicated in the lower court.

Wherefore, the motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.