alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 24 88

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Darryl Tuck er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__

__ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__

__ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 25 , 20 19 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 28 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, COLLO TON, and KOBES, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Darryl Tuc ke r ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r co m m it ti ng hi m to th e cu st od y 1
of th e Att or ne y Gen eral fo r ho sp it al iz at io n aft er fin d in g th at he was su ffer in g fro m

a m en ta l di se as e or de fect su ch th at hi s rel eas e wou ld crea te a su bs ta nt ia l r i s k o f bo di ly in jury to an ot he r pe rs on or se rio us da m ag e to th e pr op ert y of an ot he r. See 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 6.

Upo n rev ie win g fo r cl ear erro r t h e fact ua l de te rm in at io ns un de rlyin g th e di st ric t co ur t’s co m

m it m en t de ci si on , we affi rm

. See Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 29 9
F.3 d 67 3, 67 6- 78 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). The co m m it m en t o r de r is

su pp or te d by m ed ic al op in io ns se t fo r t h in rep or ts pr ep ared by m en ta l he al th

pr of es si on al s whe re Tuc ke r is pr es en tl y co nf in ed fo r tre a t men t, an d by de fen se

co unse l’s in de pe nd en t ps y ch ol og ic al ex am in er. The rep or ts no te d th at Tuc ke r su ffers fro m a m en ta l il ln es s whi ch cau se s hi m to p o s e a d a n ge r to ot he rs , ha s di ffi cu lt y

co nt ro ll in g th e sym

pt om s of th at il ln es s ev en wit hi n a m on it or ed pr is on en vi ro nm en t, la ck s in si gh t in to hi s m ed ic al co nd it io n, and li ke ly w ou ld no t ad he re t o trea tm en t if rel eas ed

. See Uni te d St at es v. Eck er, 30 F.3 d 96 6, 97 0 ( 8 t h C i r

. 19 94 ) (fac to rs in d et erm in in g po te nt ia l da ng ero us ne ss ). W e no te th at th e Att or ne y Gen eral is u n d e r

a co nt in ui ng ob li ga ti on to ex ert reas on ab le effo rts to pl ace Tuc ke r in a su it ab le st at e faci li ty, an d th at hi s cu st od ia ns m us t pr ep are an nu al rep or ts co nc ern in g h i s m en ta l

co nd it io n an d th e ne ed fo r co nt in ue d c o mm i tm en t. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 42 46 (d ) an d
42 47 (e)( 1) (B).

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed , and co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is gra nt ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le M. Dou gl as Harp oo l
, U n i t ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco mm e n d a t i on s of th e Hon or ab le Dav id P. Ru sh
, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri.

-2

-
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

                  Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I,
the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of C2, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

____________________________
William T. Donovan
March 20, 2003

                                       49
No. 72-6346.

#### Sowder *v.*City of Cincinnati.

Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 22, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Die Products Consortium (“DPC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Honeywell, Inc., Minneapolis, MN; and Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA have been dropped as parties to this venture. Also, Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation will cease to administer the Die Products Consortium as of October 1, 2000.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Die Products Consortium intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 15, 1999, Die Products Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 26, 2000 (65 FR 39429).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 31, 2000. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40129).                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-27534  Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: July 9, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Region 7, EPA

SUBJECT: July 9, 2014, Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power 

Plants

SUMMARY

A conference call was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on July 9, 2014

to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The majority of the 

discussion centered on how goals were established for the state of Iowa. The Carbon Power Plan 

for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

EPA Headquarters:

Jan Cortelyou-Lee

Brian Fisher

Ryan Sims

Erich Eschmann

EPA Region 7:

Joshua Tapp

Mark A. Smith

Ward Burns

Larry Gonzalez

Toni Gargas

Iowa Department of Natural Resources:

Catherine Fitzsimmons

Marnie Stein

Christine Paulson

Chris Roling
EXHIBIT 32.01

                            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 IQ Biometrix, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned 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; and

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


September 30, 2004                                     /s/ William Scigliano
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     William Scigliano
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
#### Charlie C. WRIGHT, Appellant, *v.*The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27344.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 27, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for murder with ■malice, and his punishment was assessed at '99 years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed his personal affidavit ■stating that he no longer desires to prosecute this appeal and requests that the same' be dismissed.

This request is accordingly granted and the appeal is dismissed.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.3

                         CITIZENS & NORTHERN CORPORATION

                   INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

     A STOCK OPTION for a total of ______________ SHARES of common stock, par
value $1.00, of Citizens & Northern Corporation, a Pennsylvania business
corporation (herein the "Corporation") is hereby granted as of January 3, 2005
to ____________________ (herein the "Director"), subject in all respects to the
terms and provisions of Citizens & Northern Corporation Independent Stock
Incentive Plan (herein the "Plan"), dated April 17, 2001, which has been adopted
by the Corporation's shareholders and which is incorporated herein by reference.
The option price as determined under paragraph 8 of the Plan is
__________________ ($______) Dollars per share.

     This Option may not be exercised more than ten (10) years from the date of
its grant, and may be exercised during such term only in accordance with the
terms of the Plan.

                           RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT

     A total of __________ SHARES of RESTRICTED common STOCK, par value $1.00,
of Citizens & Northern Corporation, a Pennsylvania business corporation (herein
the "Corporation") is hereby awarded as of January 3, 2005 to
_______________________ (herein the "Director"), subject in all respects to the
terms and provisions of Citizens & Northern Corporation Independent Stock
Incentive Plan (herein the "Plan"), dated April 17, 2001, which has been adopted
by the Corporation's shareholders and which is incorporated herein by reference.

     These shares cannot be sold, exchanged, transferred, pledged or otherwise
disposed of, except in accordance with the Plan. These transferability
restrictions will lapse as follows: ___ shares on _______ __, 2___ ; ___ shares
on _________ __, 2___; and ___ shares on _________ __, 2___.

Dated: January 3, 2005

                                        CITIZENS & NORTHERN CORPORATION


                                        BY
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Craig G. Litchfield
                                           Chairman, President &
                                           Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST:


-------------------------------------
Kathleen M. Osgood
Corporate Secretary

     The Director acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Plan, and represents
that he or she is familiar with the terms and provisions thereof. The Director
hereby accepts this Option and Award subject to all the terms and provisions of
the Plan.

Dated:
       ------------------------------


                                        --------------------------------
                                        Director


                                       77
Exhibit 3.1

                        CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

                                     FORM 9

                            ARTICLES OF AMALGAMATION
                            ------------------------
                                 (SECTION 185)

1.   Name of Amalgamated Corporation

     MDSI Mobile Data Solutions Inc.

2.   The place in Canada where the registered office is to be situated

     Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia

3.   The  classes  and any  maximum  number of shares  that the  Corporation  is
     authorized to issue

     Unlimited number of one class of shares to be designated as common shares.

4.   Restrictions, if any, on share transfers

     None.

5.   Number (or minimum and maximum number) of directors

     Minimum of three and maximum of fifteen.

6.   Restrictions, if any, on business the corporation may carry on

     None


7.   Other provisions, if any

     Between  successive annual meetings,  the directors shall have the power to
     appoint one or more  directors  to the Board,  provided  that the number of
     directors so appointed may not exceed  one-third of the number of directors
     elected  at  the  previous  annual  meeting  of  the  Shareholders  of  the
     Corporation and the number of directors on the Board of Directors shall not
     exceed  the  maximum  number  of  directors  set  out  in the  Articles  of
     Incorporation.  Any directors so appointed by the Board of Directors  shall
     hold  office  only  until  the  next   following   annual  meeting  of  the
     Shareholders of the Corporation, but shall be eligible for re-election as a
     director at such annual meeting.

8.   Th amalgamation has been approved pursuant to that section or subsection of
     the Act which is indicated as follows:

                         [ ]       183
                         [X]       184(1)
                         [ ]       184(2)

<TABLE>

9.   Name of the amalgamating corporations      Corporation No.    Signature             Date           Title 
     -------------------------------------      --------------     ---------             ----           ----- 
     <S>                                        <C>                 <C>                  <C>            <C>     
     MDSI Mobile Data Solutions Inc.            318191-0           /s/ Greg Beniston     Sep 10/98      Secretary
     MDSI Mobile Data Solutions Canada Inc.     353225-9           /s/ Greg Beniston     Sep 10/98      Secretary

</TABLE>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Department Use Only
Filed                            353414-6                    September 25, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6**  **281**

JOHN ERVIN WILSON, a/k/a John Wilson SCDC ID 295493, a/k/a John E. Wilson, Jr. , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,

v. MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution , Respondent

- Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Richard M

. Gergel , District Judge. ( 9 :1 3

- cv - 0 1003

- RMG )

Submitted : June 26 , 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John Ervin Wilson , Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Columbia, South C arolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Ervin Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2 254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrati ng that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court de nies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have indepen dently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately pres ented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Opinion issued February 4 , 20 2 1

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 00 770
- CV

——————————— NASSER CHEHAB , Appella nt

V. BBVA USA AND J&R RECOVERY LLC D/B/A SEIZED RECOVERY , Appell e e s

On Appeal from the 189 th District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 20 20
- 49197

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Nasser Chehab , ha s neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 20.1; see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial2

Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 1 5

- 91 58 (Tex. Aug. 28 , 201 5)

. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellan t did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Rivas

- Molloy

.
Lease Schedule No. 003R to Lease Agreement



 Exhibit 10.16 
 LEASE SCHEDULE NO. 003R 
 “This Lease Schedule No. 003R replaces Lease Schedule
No. 003.” 
 This Lease Schedule is issued pursuant to the Lease Agreement Number TR051905 dated May 19, 2005. The terms of the Lease
Agreement and serial numbers contained on Certificates of Acceptance are a part hereof and are incorporated by reference herein. 
  

			
	 LESSOR
	  	LESSEE
	 Farnam Street Financial, Inc.
	  	Transcend Services, Inc.
	 240 Pondview Plaza
	  	945 East Paces Ferry Road
	 5850 Opus Parkway
	  	Suite 1475
	 Minnetonka, MN 55343
	  	Atlanta, GA 30326
		
	 SUPPLIER OF EQUIPMENT
	  	LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT
	 eWorkz, Digital Voice Systems,
	  	Same as above
	 Tridia, Various
	  	

 Term of Lease from Commencement Date: 24 Months 
 Monthly Lease Charge: $26,258.00 
 Anticipated Delivery and Installation: October 2005 – February 2006 
 Projected Commencement Date: March 1, 2006 
 Security Deposit: Upon
Lessee’s execution of this Lease Schedule, Lessee shall deliver a security deposit in the amount of $26,258.00. At the end of the applicable lease term, provided that there is no event of default, this security deposit will be returned to
Lessee. 
 EQUIPMENT 
  

							
	 MANUFACTURER
	  	 QTY
	  	 MACHINE/MODEL
	  	 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION (including features)

	 Dictaphone
	  		  		  	Transcription hardware and software
	 Milner Voice & Data
	  		  		  	Voice Fusion Software
	 eWorkz
	  		  		  	Servers
	 Digital Voice Systems
	  		  		  	PCs
	 Tridia
	  		  		  	DVI Expansion, software
	 Various
	  		  		  	Various hardware and software for Data Center

 All of the Equipment on this Lease Schedule shall be defined as a total of $616,000.00. The Monthly Lease Charge
listed above is calculated based on the agreement that this cost will be comprised of $362,000.00 of hardware at a lease rate of 0.041240 per $1.00 and $254,000.00 of soft costs (software, installation, service, maintenance, deposits, etc.) at
a lease rate factor of 0.044604 per $1.00. This Lease Schedule shall Commence in accordance with the Lease Agreement when all of the Equipment cost described above is installed and accepted under Certificates of Acceptance issued pursuant to
this Lease Schedule. The Monthly Lease Charge will be prorated and charged as interim rent between the date an item of equipment is accepted and the Commencement Date. If the exact description of the Equipment changes from what is listed above or on
the Attachment A or should Lessee and Lessor agree to revise the total cost or the proportion of hardware to soft costs, a revised Lease Schedule shall be executed by both parties to reflect these changes. 
  

									
	Every Term is Agreed to and Accepted:	 		 	Every Term is Agreed to and Accepted:
			
	 FARNAM STREET FINANCIAL, INC.
 “LESSOR”
	 		 	 TRANSCEND SERVICES, INC.
 “LESSEE”

					
	By:	 	 /s/ Steven C. Morgan
	 		 	 By:
	 	 /s/ Lance B. Cornell

					
	 Print
 Name:
	 	 Steven C. Morgan
	 		 	 Print
 Name:
	 	 Lance B. Cornell

					
	 Title:
	 	 President
	 		 	 Title:
	 	 C.F.O.

					
	 Date:
	 	 Dec. 21, 2005
	 		 	 Date:
	 	 12/20/05
#### BELTRAN v. STATE.

No. 22186.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1942.

Cecil R. Glass, of Marlin, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for knowingly passing a forged check. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The indictment contains two counts: In the first count appellant is charged with forging the name of Tom S. Reed to a check in the sum of $25.50. In the second count he is charged with knowingly and fraudulently passing a forged check in said sum to *'Moble*Dunagin. The conviction is under the second count of the indictment.

The State, in the development of its case, introduced over appellant’s objection a purported confession without first having laid a proper predicate therefor by showing that appellant had signed the same. It occurs to us that the admissibility of a written confession is controlled by the general rule relative to the admission in evidence of documents by showing the execution thereof by the party charged to have executed the same. See Richardson v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 526, 244 S.W. 1021; Nixon v. State, 95 Tex.Cr.R. 126, 252 S.W. 1067.

Appellant also complains of the court’s action in declining to submit to the *212jury his special requested instruction to return a verdict of not guilty on the ground of variance between the allegation in the indictment and the proof. The indictment charged that appellant passed the check to Mabel Dunagin and the proof in support thereof is rather vague and indefinite as to whether or not he passed the check in question to the clerk from whom he purchased merchandise, or passed it on to Miss Dunagin, who placed the check in the cash register and gave the amount of the check to appellant or to the clerk from whom he had made the purchase and who in turn gave appellant the difference. If, upon another trial, it should clearly appear that the check was passed to a person other than Miss Dunagin, then appellant would be entitled to an instruction of like import as the one which he requested. See Huntly v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 34 S.W. 923; Brown v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 158 S.W. 533; Fleming v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 505, 26 S.W.2d 258.

For the error herein discussed, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.