alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 95-60748 & 95-60750

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILMER O. ROWE, Jr.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

- - - - - - - - - -

June 13, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Wilmer Rowe, #245-23-077, appeals the district court’s denial

of his joint motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentences

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This court need not consider the

issues whether the Government breached the Florida plea agreement,

whether the district court calculated the applicable restitution

amount improperly, and whether the district court erred by entering

a restitution order without finding that Rowe had the ability to

pay restitution because these issues were decided on Rowe’s direct
Nos. 95-60748 & 95-60750

- 2 -

criminal appeal. See United States v. Santiago, 993 F.2d 504, 506

& n.4 (5th Cir. 1993). Rowe’s allegations that the district court

erred by denying his § 2255 motion because the Government committed

prosecutorial misconduct, because the Government failed to disclose

material terms of the plea agreement at sentencing, and because he

was denied a fair sentencing due to alleged deliberate false

testimony of witnesses Fellabaum and Fayard are not within the

scope of § 2255 because they are nonconstitutional issues that

could have been raised on direct appeal. See United States v.

Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Capua,

656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir. 1981). Rowe’s allegations that he

was denied effective assistance of counsel do not support relief

because the allegations are conclusional. See Lincecum v. Collins,

958 F.2d 1271, 1279-80 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 957

(1992).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1
                            SUMMARY OF BASE SALARIES
                                       FOR
                 EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION

      On January 18, 2005, upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee,
the Board of Directors of Park National Corporation ("Park") approved the base
salaries for each of the executive officers of Park: (a) C. Daniel DeLawder,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Park and The Park National
Bank, a subsidiary of Park; (b) David L. Trautman, President and Secretary of
Park and President of The Park National Bank; and (c) John W. Kozak, Chief
Financial Officer of Park and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of The Park National Bank, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the
"2005 fiscal year"). The Compensation Committee also recommended that the cash
compensation paid to these three executive officers during the 2005 fiscal year
be split at 50% base salary and 50% incentive compensation. Messrs. DeLawder,
Trautman and Kozak historically had received the majority of their total cash
compensation in incentive compensation. The Compensation Committee reviewed
independently generated peer group information of similarly sized bank holding
companies developed by SNL Securities which revealed that the individuals
holding these positions typically receive a majority of their cash compensation
in base salary. To be more consistent with peers, and at the suggestion of the
management of Park and The Park National Bank, the Compensation Committee
considered and then approved a 50/50 split between base salary and cash
incentive compensation. Management also suggested that Messrs. DeLawder and
Trautman receive no increase in the aggregate amount of cash compensation paid
during the 2005 fiscal year, but that the proportion of total cash compensation
allocated to base salary and incentive compensation for the 2005 fiscal year
should change. Management suggested, and the Compensation Committee concurred
after reviewing peer data, to increase Mr. Kozak's total cash compensation.
Accordingly, the base salaries for the 2005 fiscal year were $464,240 for Mr.
DeLawder, $307,108 for Mr. Trautman and $200,500 for Mr. Kozak.

      On February 7, 2006, the Compensation Committee approved the base salaries
for each of Messrs. DeLawder, Trautman and Kozak for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2006 (the "2006 fiscal year"). Management suggested that Messrs.
DeLawder, Trautman and Kozak receive the same base salary for the 2006 fiscal
year as they had received in 2005 and the Compensation Committee concurred after
reviewing independently generated peer group information of similarly sized bank
holding companies developed by SNL Securities.
Exhibit 10.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


TO THE 2005 HERITAGE
COMMERCE CORP


SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE
RETIREMENT PLAN


 


This First Amendment to the 2005 Heritage Commerce
Corp Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (hereinafter “First Amendment”) is
made and entered into effective this January 27, 2006, by Heritage Commerce
Corp. This First Amendment amends the 2005 Heritage Commerce Corp Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan, designed to provide supplemental retirement benefits
to certain key employees of Heritage Commerce Corp, Heritage Bank of Commerce
and subsidiaries or affiliates thereof (hereinafter “the Employer”), effective
as of January 1, 2005, as follows:


 


Paragraph 5.1 shall be amended so as to add/insert the
following language immediately after the last sentence of paragraph 5.1:


 


Furthermore, for any Executive affected by this six
(6) month delay in payment imposed by IRC 409A, and when applicable, the
aggregate amount of the first seven (7) months of installments shall be paid at
the beginning of the seventh month following the date of separation from
service. Monthly installment payments shall continue thereafter according to
Form of Benefit chosen.


 


To the extent that any paragraph, term, or provision of The 2005
Heritage Commerce Corp Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan is not
specifically amended herein, or in any other amendment thereto, said paragraph,
term, or provision shall remain in full force and effect as set forth in said
Plan.


 


WHEREFORE, the following duly authorized representatives have signed
this Agreement as of the written date.


 


HERITAGE COMMERCE CORP


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Lawrence D. McGovern

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
  1/27/06

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Lawrence D. McGovern CFO

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Rebecca A. Levey

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
  1/27/06

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Rebecca A. Levey
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3196 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3196

    To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal 
   Communications Commission from adopting certain rules or policies 
relating to multichannel video programming distributors, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 2013

  Mr. Latta (for himself and Mr. Gene Green of Texas) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal 
   Communications Commission from adopting certain rules or policies 
relating to multichannel video programming distributors, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF INTEGRATION BAN.

    (a) In General.--Section 629 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 549) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (f), by striking ``Nothing'' and 
        inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (g), nothing''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Integrated Devices.--Nothing in this section or any other 
provision of this Act authorizes the Commission to adopt any rule or 
policy that prohibits a multichannel video programming distributor from 
placing into service navigation devices for sale, lease, or use that 
perform both conditional access and other functions in a single 
integrated device. Any such rule or policy adopted by the Commission 
prior to the date of enactment of this subsection shall cease to be 
effective on such date of enactment, and the Commission shall remove 
any such rule or policy from the rules of the Commission.''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Except as provided in subsection (g) of 
section 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by subsection 
(a), nothing in this section or the amendments made by this section 
shall be construed to affect the authority of the Federal 
Communications Commission under such section 629.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

October 5, 2012

Order 

October 5, 2012

145842(30)

IN RE STONER

_______

LARRY ROBERT STONER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 145842

COA: 309041

WASHTENAW CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff for waiver of filing fees is 

treated as a motion for reconsideration of the order of September 13, 2012 and, so treated, 

it is denied because it does not appear the order was entered erroneously.
Exhibit 12
                                                            

                   ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                       (Dollars in thousands)

                            Three Months Ended       Nine Months Ended
                               September 30,           September 30,
                             1997        1996        1997         1996
                                                                    
Net earnings                $ 42,412   $ 44,356    $ 28,013    $130,506
Federal and state                                                    
  income taxes                14,748     22,864       9,741      67,229
                                                                    
Earnings before income                                              
  taxes                       57,160     67,220      37,754     197,735
                                                                    
                                                                    
Fixed charges:                                                      
  Interest                    88,414     77,697     239,673     200,964
  One-third of all rentals (A)   746        781       2,572       1,947
  Preferred stock dividend of                                       
   subsidiary trust            2,248          0       6,743           0
Total fixed charges           91,408     78,478     248,988     202,911
                                                                    
Earnings before income                                              
  taxes and fixed charges   $148,568   $145,698    $286,742    $400,646
                                                                    
Ratio of earnings to fixed                                          
  charges (A)                   1.63x      1.86x       1.15x       1.97x

(A) For purposes of computing these ratios, "earnings" represent income
    before income taxes plus fixed charges, and "fixed charges" consist
    of interest expense, one-third (the proportion deemed representative
    of the interest factor) of rental expense on operating leases, and
    preferred stock dividends of subsidiary trust.
#### MITCHAM v. WELLER.

No. 2540.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

March 29, 1946.

Callaway & Callaway, of Brownwood, for appellant.

E. M. Davis, of Brownwood, for ap-pellee.

LONG, Justice.

The parties will be referred to herein as in the trial court. Plaintiff, R. A. Weller, sued defendant Bill Mitcham, and for cause of action alleged that the plaintiff purchased a house from the defendant in the City of Brownwood, and that at the time of the purchase, said residence was equipped throughout with Venetian blinds, and that plaintiff was led to believe and did believe that such blinds were permanent fixtures and part of the realty; that the defendant entered the residence and took possession of the blinds and removed the same from the premises, whereby plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $500. He further alleged that the defendant acted maliciously and recklessly toward plaintiff in removing and appropriating the blinds, and that plaintiff was damaged in the further sum of $475 as exemplary damages. Defendant answered said petition, and upon the day of the trial plaintiff, after having obtained leave of the court, filed a trial amendment, and in addition to the damages alleged in his First Amended Original Petition, he claimed damages in the sum of $100 for the loss of the use of the house in question for a period of two months. Whereupon, a trial was had before the court without a jury and judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $295.20 for the value of the Venetian blinds, and the further sum of $100 as the reasonable rental of the residence. From this judgment defendant duly appealed to this court.

The first point raised by defendant in his brief, to the effect that the amount sued for by plaintiff exceeded the jurisdiction of the county court, must be sustained. From an examination of the pleadings it appears that the amount sued for by the plaintiff is the sum of $1075. This is beyond the jurisdiction of the county court. Articles 1949, 1950, R.C.S.; Manly v. Citizens Nat. Bank in Abilene, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 993; Parlin & Orendorff Implement Co. v. Clements, 54 Tex.Civ.App. 356, 117 S.W. 495; Commercial Investment Trust, Inc. v. Smart, Tex.Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d 805.

Being of the opinion that the county court had no jurisdiction of the cause of action claimed by the plaintiff, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Winfield
Capital Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Paul A. Perlin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


Dated:  February 9, 2005               By: /s/ PAUL A. PERLIN
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Paul A. Perlin
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           & Director


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.

                                      -26-
**Exhibit 32(i)**

****

**CERTIFICATION**

******PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350**

In connect with the quarterly
report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended November 30, 2005 to be filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on
or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 as of the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.

It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.



|Date: January 13, 2006 | By: | /s/ Douglas P. Taylor                     
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive
Officer
#### ALLEN v. STATE.

No. 23629.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 2, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was indicted for the killing with malice of Joe Enna, and by the jury given the penalty of death.

In a companion case, appellant’s brother, Oscar Allen, was also assessed the penalty of death for the killing of Joe Enna. Allen v. State, Tex.Cr., 200 S.W.2d 168.

The testimony herein shows that deceased operated a liquor store in Dallas, Texas, and on October IS, 1946, he and his wife were therein in the late evening. Oscar Allen came into the store, ordered a bottle of gin, and laid some change on the counter to pay therefor. While the deceased was counting this money, which was not enough, appellant walked into the store with two dollars in his hand and gave the same to the deceased, who started to place same in the cash register, whereupon Oscar Allen produced a pistol and called upon the deceased to “Give me all your money.” Deceased put up his hands and appellant, Charlie Allen, said, “Let him have it.” Oscar Allen then shot Enna through the breast from which wound he died in about five days.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and no testimony was offered by appellant.

We think the testimorfy is sufficient under the law of principals to show that appellant aided, encouraged and abetted his brother in killing this unoffending man.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

HAWKINS, Pi J„ absent.
EXHIBIT 10.19

                       AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LETTER AGREEMENT
                       -----------------------------------

     This  Amendment  No.  1  to Letter Agreement (the Amendment) is dated as of
August  30,  2004 and is made by and between Mr. Colin Dyer (Mr. Dyer) and Jones
Lang  LaSalle  Incorporated  (Jones  Lang  LaSalle).

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

     Mr.  Dyer  and Jones Lang LaSalle have previously entered into that certain
letter  agreement  (the  Letter  Agreement)  dated  July  16, 2004 regarding the
employment  of  Mr.  Dyer  as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Jones
Lang  LaSalle.  The  Letter  Agreement provided that the Employment Commencement
Date  would be September 7, 2004.  Mr. Dyer and Jones Lang LaSalle have mutually
agreed  to change the Employment Commencement Date to August 30, 2004 and desire
to  memorialize  that  agreement  by  the  execution  of  this  Amendment.

                                    AGREEMENT
                                    ---------

     Mr.  Dyer  and Jones Lang LaSalle hereby agree that for all purposes of the
Letter  Agreement, the term "Employment Commencement Date" shall mean August 30,
2004.  As amended by this Amendment, the Letter Agreement is hereby ratified and
confirmed  in  its  entirety.

     IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Amendment as
of  the  date  first  written  above.


                                  /s/  Colin  Dyer
                                  ----------------
                                  Colin  Dyer

                             JONES  LANG  LASALLE  INCORPORATED

                             By:
                                  /s/  Stuart  L.  Scott
                                  ----------------------
                                  Stuart  L.  Scott
                                  Chairman of the Board of Directors
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned herebycertifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Annual Report of the Company onForm 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the periodcovered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for theperiod covered by the Report.

 
|   | By: /s/ Kenneth H.  Traub              |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Kenneth H. Traub                       |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

Date:  March 31, 2005

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AmericanBank Note Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank Note Holographics, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-0303

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM214AD

747-56A2012 --- 8/24/06

747-56A2012 IN 03 --- 10/14/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008