alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JENNINGS v. STATE.

No. 22469.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1943.

Aubrey Morris, of Waco, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of fifty dollars for driving on a public highway while intoxicated. The judgment was on a plea of guilty. The record contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. No notice of appeal was given, and this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
--------------------------------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-42859 of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital Trust
III, Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P., Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital
Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P. and Registration Statement
No. 333-44173 of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital
Trust IV, Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P., Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P. on Forms S-3 of our
reports dated March 29, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV,
L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


New York, New York
March 29, 2005
Executive Incentive Plan (2005)



 Exhibit 10(g) 
  
 AMENDMENT TO THE 
 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN (2005) 
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM 
  
 WHEREAS, the Union Pacific Corporation (the “Company’) sponsors the
Executive Incentive Compensation Plan (2005) Deferred Compensation Program (the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Plan provides that it may be amended by the Senior Vice President-Human Resources of the Union Pacific Corporation (the “Senior Vice
President”) to any extent she deems advisable; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company, in a Resolution dated November 18, 2004, authorized the Senior Vice President to make any amendments to any nonqualified compensation or retirement plan as may be necessary or appropriate
in response to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (the “Act”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, it is desired to make certain amendments to the Plan to comply with the Act. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, I, Barbara W. Schaefer, Senior Vice President-Human Resources, do hereby amend the Plan effective January 1, 2005, to provide as
follows with respect to deferral elections and the revocation thereof for bonus awards for services performed in 2005: 
  
 “An eligible employee under the Plan may elect to defer all or a portion of his bonus award under the Plan, if any, for services performed in 2005
(“2005 Award”) by filing a deferral election in accordance with such procedures as are established by the Assistant Vice President Compensation and Diversity of Union Pacific Corporation, provided that such election shall be made no later
than June 30, 2005. An eligible employee may revoke a deferral election of a 2005 Award by filing a revocation in accordance with such procedures as are established by the Assistant Vice President Compensation and Diversity of Union Pacific
Corporation, provided that such revocation shall be made no later than December 31, 2005. Such revocation shall be effective as of January 1, 2005, and if the eligible employee otherwise satisfies the Plan requirements to receive the 2005
Award, the 2005 Award shall be paid to him in a single sum at the time prescribed under the terms of the Plan.” 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, Barbara W. Schaefer, Senior Vice President-Human Resources, have hereunto set my hand and caused these presents to be executed this
21st day December, 2005. 
  

	
	 /s/ Barbara W. Schaefer


	 Barbara W. Schaefer

	 Senior Vice President-Human Resources

	 Union Pacific Corporation
**Exhibit 99.7**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS**

 

We refer to our reportentitled “Report on Reserves Data by Independent Qualified Reserves Evaluatoror Auditor” dated March 14, 2008 evaluating the reserves attributable toCanadian Superior Energy Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2007 (the“Report”).

 

We hereby consent toreferences to our name and to the Report in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 40-Fto be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuantto the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We also confirm that wehave read the Annual Information Form included in the Annual Report on Form 40-Fand that we have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations inthe information contained in it that are derived from the Report or that arewithin our knowledge as a result of the services we performed in connectionwith the Report. We also consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-137035) ofthe Report.

 
|   | Yours truly,                        |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   | **GLJ  PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.** |
|   | /s/ John H. Stilling, P.  Eng.      |
|   | John H. Stilling, P. Eng.           |
|   | Vice–President                 |

Calgary, Alberta

March 30, 2007

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137182 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 137182 

 COA: 283829 

Gd Traverse CC: 06-010254-FH 

JEFFREY JOSEPH TURKETTE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 11, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

1215 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 30, 2008 

 Clerk
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

A LCOHOL MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

ACTSOFT, INC., OHIO HOUSE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC.

AND US HOME DETENTION SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT , INC., Defendant s- Appellees

.

____________________

20 12 -1 066

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in consolidated Nos . 0 7- CV

- 2261 and 08

- CV

- 1226 , Judge Philip A. Brimmer

.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ICHAEL G. M ARTIN , Lathrop & Gage LLP, of Denver, Colorado

, argued for plaintiff

- appell ant . With h im on the brief w ere P HILIP S. L ORENZO and J AMES E. D ALLNER

.K YLE B. F LEMING , Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP, of Cleveland, Ohio, argued for defendant

- appellee. With him on the brief were T ODD R. T UCKER and N ICHOLAS J. G INGO , for Actsoft, Inc., et al. Of counsel on the brief were Richard E. Fee and Kathleen M. Wade, Fee & Jeffries P.A., of Tampa, Florida, for Actsoft, Inc.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , M OORE , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 1, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly C lerk
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOHN DAVID POSTA

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 852

[ April 1, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Michael A. Usan , Judge; L.T. Case No. 18

- 7014CF10A

.

Fred Haddad of Fred Haddad, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URI AM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of J.Crew Group, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended January 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Millard S. Drexler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James S. Scully,
Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of each of our knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: March 19, 2010



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MILLARD
DREXLER                                               
|Millard Drexler Chief Executive Officer                              
|                                                                     
|/s/    JAMES
SCULLY                                                  
|James Scully Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

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.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions 10th Cir. R. 36.3.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/13/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

LEE ALLEN AASE, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. SCOTT CARVER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Respondent-Appellee. No. 96-4054 (D.C. No. 92-CV-1059-W)

(Utah)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, KELLYand LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Lee Allen Aase filed a petition for a writ of habea s corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 contending that his right to a fair and impartial trial was denied due to excessive and prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge and counsel was appointed for peti tioner. After conducting an evidentiary hearing at which five of the eight juro rs from Mr. Aase’s state criminal trial testified, the magistrate judge issu ed a report recommending that the petition be denied on the grounds that Mr. Aase fai led to establish the requisite prejudice. The district court conducted a de novo review and affirmed the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. We have reviewed the record and Mr. Aase’s argument s on appeal. We are not persuaded that the district court erred either in its analysis or its conclusions. We therefore AFFIRM the district court for the reasons set out in its Memorandum Decision and Order dated February 9, 199 6.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

A public meeting of the South Florida District Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held in Fort Myers, Florida.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Saturday, February 26, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Ferree at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7974.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a Public meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held Saturday, February 26, 2000, 9:00 a.m. to Noon at the Edison Community College, Learning Resource Building, J-103 Corbin Auditorium, 8099 College Parkway SW, Fort Myers, FL 33919.

For more information contact Nancy Ferree at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7974. The public is invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 10 minutes. If you would like to have the CAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7974, or write Nancy Ferree, CAP Office, 7771 W. Oakland Park Blvd #225, Sunrise, FL 33351. The Agenda will include the following: various IRS issues.

# Note:

Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice.

Dated: January 29, 2000.

John J. Mannion,

Program Manager, Taxpayer Advocate Service.

[FR Doc. 00-2733 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*CHARLES COLEMAN

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15947.

*Richard Emanuel,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*Marjorie Allen Dauster,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided June 10, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 260 (AC 13103), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Should this court review the defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s instructions that ‘the law is made to protect society and innocent persons, and not to protect guilty ones’?

“2. If the answer to the first question is yes, did the instructions violate the defendant’s federal or state constitutional rights to have the jury adequately instructed regarding the presumption of innocence and the concept of reasonable doubt?”

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2743]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Advanced Networking and Infrastructure 
Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Advanced Networking and 
Infrastructure Research (#1207).
    Date/Time: February 22 and 23, 2000; 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
    Place: Room 1120, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Persons: Darleen Fisher and Karen Sollins, Division of 
Advanced Networking Infrastructure Research, Room 1175, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 306-1950.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted to the 
Networking Research Program as part of the selection process for 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 1, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-2743 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 568 

To require that the Government give priority to payment of all obligations 

on the debt held by the public and payment of Social Security benefits 

in the event that the debt limit is reached. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2011 

Mr. HELLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require that the Government give priority to payment 

of all obligations on the debt held by the public and 

payment of Social Security benefits in the event that 

the debt limit is reached. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRIORITIZE OBLIGATIONS ON THE DEBT HELD 

4 BY THE PUBLIC AND PAYMENT OF SOCIAL SE5 CURITY BENEFITS. 

6 In the event that the debt of the United States Gov7 ernment, as defined in section 3101 of title 31, United 

8 States Code, reaches the statutory limit, the authority of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 568 IH 

1 the Department of the Treasury provided in section 3123 

2 of title 31, United States Code, to pay with legal tender 

3 the principal and interest on debt held by the public and 

4 the authority of the Commissioner of Social Security to 

5 pay monthly old-age, survivors’, and disability insurance 

6 benefits under title II of the Social Security Act shall take 

7 priority over all other obligations incurred by the Govern8 ment of the United States. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
AmerUs Group Co.

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos.
333-32201, 333-32203, 333-40065, 333-20907, 333-20905, 333-63895, 333-72237,
333-91493 and 333-50030 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-72643
and 333-50249 on Forms S-3 of our reports dated February 5, 2001, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of AmerUs Group Co. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2000 and 1999, and related consolidated statements of income,
comprehensive income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedules
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which
appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of AmerUs Group Co.

                                          KPMG LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
March 9, 2001
#### Louis Earl VINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 24521.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1949.

No attorney for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Upon his, plea of guilty appellant was convicted of unlawfully possessing narcotics and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

By proper affidavit he advises the court that he does not further desire to prosecute his appeal. Upon appellant’s request said appeal is therefore dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

J. Crew Group, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statements (File No. 333-60658, File No. 333-126142, File No. 333-135390, and File No. 333-139313) on Forms S-8 of J. Crew Group, Inc. of our reports dated March 26, 2008, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of J. Crew Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of February 3, 2007 and February 2, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for eachof the years in the three-year period ended February 2, 2008, and the related financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of February 2, 2008, which reports appear in the February 2,2008 annual report on Form 10-K of J. Crew Group, Inc. 

Our report refers to the Company’s adoption of Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), *“**Share-Based Payment**”* and FASB Interpretation No. 48, *“**Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB StatementNo. 109.**”*

/s/ KPMG LLP 

New York, NewYork 

March 26, 2008
#### CONNER v. STATE.

No. 24803.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June *7,*1950.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; the penalty assessed is a fine of $50.

The appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a jury upon, his trial.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

The judgment is affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-50041

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cecilio Torres-Ibarra,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:23-CR-1189-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Cecilio Torres-Ibarra appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal 

reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues 

that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the 

otherwise applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 26, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-50041 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2024
No. 24-50041

2

facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt.

He has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a 

letter brief correctly conceding that the only issue he raises is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. 

Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). He explains that he has raised 

the issue to preserve it for possible further review. Because summary 

disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 

1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Torres-Ibarra’s motion is GRANTED, and the district 

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-50041 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2024