alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HUMPHREY JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-93-452, CA-96-1592-AM)

Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Humphrey Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Cathleen Ann Tutty, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Bradley Stuart Lui, Senior Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Jones, Nos. CR-93-452; CA-96-1592-AM (E.D.

Va. July 29, 1997). We deny Jones’ motion for expedited treatment.

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.

DISMISSED
Order entered April 30, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01639-CR

BERNARD WINFIELD SHORTT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F07-00193-M

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On March 4, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On April 28, 2014, we received the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the March 4, 2014 order 

requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          15,080
<SECURITIES>                                    61,610
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,188
<ALLOWANCES>                                       306
<INVENTORY>                                         71
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,743
<PP&E>                                           7,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,524
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           151
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,186
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,530
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   355
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,657
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,568
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,089
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,089
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 3.04

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF
AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION

Click2learn, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:

The
following amendment to the corporation's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation was duly proposed by the corporation's Board of Directors and adopted by the corporation's
stockholders in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware:

The
first paragraph of Article IV of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is amended to read as follows:

ARTICLE IV



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officer this 30th day of May, 2002.

| |  | CLICK2LEARN, INC.
| |  | -----------------
| |  | By               
| |  |                  

---

QuickLinks
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation (Hyperdynamics), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Ray Leonard, Chief Executive Officer of Hyperdynamics, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.
  Date: November 23, 2009
   By: /s/ Ray Leonard
 Ray Leonard
 Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants

The General Partners
Essex Portfolio, L.P.;

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-68503, No. 333-44467, No. 333-21989, and No. 333-36029), and the
registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-84830 and No. 333-55646) of Essex
Portfolio, L.P., our report dated February 5, 2002, except as to the second
paragraph of Note (3)(b), for which the date is February 15, 2002, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Essex Portfolio, L.P. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, Partner's capital and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2001 and the related financial statement
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form
10-K of Essex Portfolio, L.P.

KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
April 1, 2002
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0150

 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM234AD

THALES C16291A-34-007 --- 8/27/09

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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00854

- CR

Romeo HINOJOSA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CRM

- 635

- D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED May 7, 2014.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY

Brick and Structural Clay Products

FROM: Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International

DATE OF CONTACT: June 2, 2015

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED: 

Boral Bricks Inc.

PERSON CONTACTED: 

Terry Schimmel

334-480-2488

PURPOSE OF CONTACT:

To obtain additional information regarding green brick mercury testing results.

SUMMARY OF CONTACT: 

The Brick Industry Association (BIA) provided the EPA with a spreadsheet of mercury green 

brick testing results with the intent to add a mercury raw material variability factor to the 

Mercury MACT floor limit. In order to incorporate this raw material data, the EPA needed to 

know a little bit more about the general location of the clay deposits being used by the facilities:

-What is the clay deposit name being used by the facility?

-What is the geological age of the deposit? 

-Is the location of the facility approximately the same location as the deposit?

Mr. Schimmel indicated that Boral Bricks Inc. could provide the additional information

regarding the deposit information in correlation to the green brick mercury testing results. 

Mr. Schimmel indicated that he would provide a spreadsheet of the Boral Bricks Inc. facilities 

that provided green brick testing results to EPA via BIA and fill in the: Name of Clay Deposit, 

Geological Age of the Deposit, and Latitude/Longitude of the Clay Deposit.
# 252-/5" ELECTRONIC RECORD COA# 02-14-00039-CR OFFENSE: 49.04 Barclay Edward Berdan II v. The 

### STYLE: stateof Texas COUNTY: Tarrant COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: County Criminal Court No. 9 DATE: 01/22/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1327699



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Barclay Edward Berdan II v.The 

### STYLE: State ofTexas 

# APf>Eu.Afi/r\ Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: JUDGE: CCA#: 

# lSZ^SL CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:
REHEARING IN CCA IS:JUDGEPC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR
ELECTRONIC RECORD
#### Roy BELCHER, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 22, 1953.

J. Ervin Sanders, P. H. Hyden, Pike-ville, for movant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

• Motiop for an appeal from the Pike Circuit Court. Judgment of conviction for having in unlawful possession whiskey for the purpose of sale in local option territory. $100 fine and 60 days in jail. The facts, questions raised, authorities cited and applicable law have been carefully considered by the Court.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
REGARDING THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2009

In connection with the Annual Report of Heritage Commerce Corp (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter T. Kaczmarek, Chief Executive 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:



March 16, 2010

/s/ WALTER T. KACZMAREK Walter T. Kaczmarek Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,900,751
<SECURITIES>                                14,347,828
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,990,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,338,983
<PP&E>                                       3,912,171
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,342,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,468,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,112,983
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,818
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,320,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,468,543
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,192,278
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,820,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,346,573
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,398
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,870,283)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    65,753
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,936,036)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,936,036)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,133,740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  319,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,848,061
<PP&E>                                       1,812,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                 607,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,544,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,652,280
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,512
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,728,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,544,585
<SALES>                                      5,122,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,122,434
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,742,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               564,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,231,555)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (999,938)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,231,617)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,231,617)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
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 the Treasury

###### Fiscal Service

# AGENCY:

Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This is Supplement No. 2 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; 2000 Revision, published June 30, 2000, at 65 FR 40868.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6507.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the Certificates of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above named Companies, under the United States Code, Title 31, Sections 9304-9308, to qualify as acceptable sureties on Federal bonds are terminated effective immediately.

The Companies were last listed as acceptable sureties on Federal bonds at 65 FR 40896, 40897, and 40903, June 30, 2000. 

With respect to any bonds, including continuous bonds, currently in force with above listed Companies, bond-approving officers should secure new bonds with acceptable sureties in those instances where a significant amount of liability remains outstanding. In addition, bonds that are continuous in nature should not be renewed.

The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at http://www.fms.treas.gov/​c570/​index.html. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-000-00536-5.

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Dated: October 16, 2000.

Judith R. Tillman,

Assistant Commissioner, Financial Operations, Financial Management Service.

[FR Doc. 00-27672 Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
#### TRAYLOR et ux. v. WEST.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 27, 1953.

*613John F. Coldiron and Frank K. War-nock, Greenup, Carlton Counts, South Shore, for appellants.

Harvey Parker, Jr., Vanceburg, T. E. Nickel and Oscar Sammons, Greenup, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This controversy involves the ownership of a strip of land about 100 feet long and 30 feet wide. The strip is within the boundary described in appellee’s deed. Appellants owned the adjoining tract, and their claim is that they have adversely possessed the strip by encroachment since March 1929.

After suit was filed the Court directed Mr. E. G. Curtis, a surveyor, to locate the correct boundary line between the lands of the parties. He did so, and there is no dispute about its proper location. The action was tried before a jury, and they returned a verdict which simply stated that they agreed with the survey of Mr. Curtis.

Appellants contend they were entitled to a directed verdict because' their evidence' showed adverse possession of the strip for more than 15 years. It does appear that they maintained a few small buildings on the disputed land and had cultivated it to some extent. However, the testimony for appellee is that while appellants did encroach upon their land, the matter was discussed on several occasions and appellants stated that they would move their buildings if they were not within their boundary.

Appellants cite authorities to the effect that even though a party may make a mistake as to the true location of a boundary line, if he has the intention to hold an-fcther’s property adversely, such intention will determine the nature of the possession. On the other hand, appellee cites numerous authorities to the effect that where one occupies another’s land by mistake but does not intend to claim land not belonging to him, his possession will not be adverse. Under both lines of cases the claimant’s intention is the controlling factor. The evidence in the case was conflicting on this question of intent, and therefore appellants were not entitled to a directed verdict.

Appellants further, contend that the instructions were erroneous and confusing and amounted to a directed verdict for appellee. We have read them carefully and they are not subject to appellants’ criticism. They presented clearly both appellants’ and appellee’s theory of the ;casei The jury was authorized to find for appellants if they believed their possession had been actually adverse rather than permissive or with an intention to claim only to the true boundary. The verdict itself standing alone appears incomprehensible, but under Instruction 1 this was the type of verdict authorized if the jury found for appellee. On the whole case we believe the issues were fairly presented arid the evidence supported the verdict'and judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3280 

To amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to limit the application 

of such Act to certain imported plants and finished plant products, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 9, 2013 

Mr. FLEMING (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to limit 

the application of such Act to certain imported plants 

and finished plant products, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lacey Act Clarifying 

5 Amendments Act of 2013’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3280 IH

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF PLANTS AND PLANT PRODUCTS 

2 UNDER LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1981. 

3 Section 9 of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 

4 U.S.C. 3378) is redesignated as section 10, and the fol5 lowing is inserted after section 8: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 9. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION TO CERTAIN 

7 PLANTS AND PLANT PRODUCTS. 

8 ‘‘This Act does not apply with respect to— 

9 ‘‘(1) any plant that was imported into the 

10 United States before May 22, 2008; or 

11 ‘‘(2) any finished plant product the assembly 

12 and processing of which was completed before May 

13 22, 2008.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS