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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24-0266
STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. AARON LEE OLBRICHT,

Defendant and Appellant. ORDER 

# F:LED MAY - 7 2024 cleo"^ ES 

### ofS,Pre7"00<3 of On his own behalf, Aaron Lee Olbricht has filed a verified Petition for an Out-ofTime Appeal, indicating that he failed to file a timely Notice ofAppeal because he "was misinformed that [he] could file [an] appeal on [his] sentence review." Olbricht includes
a copy ofthe January 4, 2024 Sentencing Order issued in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County. Olbricht also moves this Court for appointment ofcounsel. We observe that Olbricht served a copy ofhis Petition to the County Attorney, but he did not include service to the Attorney General, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 10(2). M. R. App. P. 4(6) allows this Court to grant an out-of-time appeal "[i]n the infrequent harsh case and under extraordinary circumstances amounting to a gross miscarriage ofjustice[.]" Olbricht has recent convictions and sentences. This Court concludes that Olbricht is entitled to an appeal and that he may be entitled to representation ofcounsel. Section 46-8-104, MCA. Therefore, ITIS ORDEREDthat Olbricht'sPetition for an Out-of-TimeAppeal isGRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Olbricht's Motion for Appointment ofCounsel is GRANTED. The Appellate Defender Division shall have thirty days from the date of this Orderwithin which either to file aNotice ofAppeal or a Motion toRescind this Order Appointing Counsel. IfOlbricht qualifies for appointed counsel, the Appellate Defender Division shall immediately order the appropriate transcripts. 05/07/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0266The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to:

Attorney General Austin Knudsen with a copy of Olbricht's Petition; counsel ofrecord; the Appellate Defender Division, and Aaron Lee Olbricht personally. DATED this Y-

—day ofMay, 2024.

ChiefJustice

t" 46•J'4 ,

2 Justices
#### UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY v. Carl MAUK et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 12, 1954.

J. K. Wells, Paintsville, for appellant.*

Thomas E. Nickel, Oscar Sammons, Greenup, for appellees.

MOREMEN, Judge.

This action was instituted by appellant to condemn a right of way 703 feet in length, comprising 0.96 acres, across a part of appellees’ 40 acre tract of land in Greenup County for a pipe line easement. The right of ways for other portions of this pipe line were involved in United Fuel Gas Co. v. Mauk, 272 S.W.2d 810; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Hieneman, 272 S.W.2d 813, 814, decided on this day, as well as other cases to-day decided, involving similar condemnations.

The commissioners’ -award of $245 -for the easement area was appealed to the Greenup Circuit Court and there a judgment of $1100 was rendered — $500 for the easement area and $600 for resulting damages to the remaining property. The case was tried with damages, being the sole question.

The facts are essentially the same and the. questions involved herein are' almost identical with those involved in the .two above cited cases.

Therefore, for the reasons given in, and upon the authority of, United Fuel Gas *Co.*v. Mauk, 272 S.W.2d 850, and United Fuel Gas Co. v. Hieneman, 272 S.W.2d 813, 814, the motion for an appeal is granted and the judgment is reversed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.4
 
                           EAGLE FAMILY FOODS, INC.
 
                      RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 
                       (THOUSANDS EXCEPT RATIO AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  ONE HUNDRED
                                                                 FIFTY-FIVE DAY
                                                                  PERIOD ENDED
                                                                 JUNE 27, 1998
                                                                 --------------
<S>                                                              <C>
ADJUSTED EARNINGS
Income (loss) before income taxes...............................    $(40,690)(b)
Portion of rent ($180) representative of interest...............          60
Interest on indebtedness........................................      11,571
                                                                    --------
  Total earnings (loss) as adjusted.............................    $(29,059)
                                                                    ========
FIXED CHARGES
Portion of rent representative of interest......................          60
Interest on indebtedness........................................      11,571
                                                                    --------
  Total fixed charges...........................................    $ 11,631
                                                                    ========
Deficiency of earnings..........................................    $(40,690)
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..............................         --  (a)
                                                                    ========
</TABLE>
--------
(a) As earnings for the one hundred fifty-five day period ended June 27, 1998
    were inadequate to cover fixed charges, a ratio of earnings to fixed
    charges for the period has not been presented. The deficiency of earnings
    to fixed charges was approximately $41.0 million.
(b) Reflects the nonrecurring in-process research and development write-off of
    $23.9 million.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5


<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               9,335
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,302,201
<PP&E>                                             473,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                      96,731
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,302,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,790,813
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                            32,683
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                         938,371
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,302,867
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,073,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,558,256)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19,558,256)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,558,256)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.21)


</TABLE>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00027-CV

WILLIAM R. AND SUSAN M. KNODERER, Appellants

V.

STATE FARM LLOYDS, PENNI PERKINS AND TOM ROBERTS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 74,037

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O RDER

As part of the appellate record in this matter, original exhibits were transferred to this 

Court for our use when this appeal was before us. Specifically, original documents marked 

“Exhibit 31” were transferred to this Court. It appears to this Court that the proper repository for 

these exhibits should be the Hunt County District Clerk’s Office. Accordingly, we order the 

clerk of this Court to transfer the original exhibits filed in this appeal into the keeping of the 

Hunt County District Clerk by mailing the exhibits to the district clerk via certified mail, return 

receipt requested.

We further order the Hunt County District Clerk, Stacey Landrum, on receipt of said 

exhibits, to sign and return to this Court the enclosed receipt for said exhibits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: January 9, 2015
3

RECEIPT FOR ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

I, Stacey Landrum, Hunt County District Clerk, hereby acknowledge receipt of the 

following original exhibits from the Court of Appeals, Sixth Judicial District, Texarkana, Texas, 

in the case of William R. and Susan M. Knoderer v. State Farm Lloyds, Penni Perkins and Tom 

Roberts, appellate cause number 06-13-00027-CV and trial court cause number 74,037: original 

documents marked “Exhibit 31.”

___________________________________

Stacey Landrum

Hunt County District Clerk

Date:
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 I, R. David Russell, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Apollo Gold Corporation for the period ended March 31, 2004;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 ****Date: January 20, 2005
By:
/s/ R. David RussellR. David Russell, Chief Executive Officer
,., a 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 22-0346 

MATHEW RYAN AILER, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Respondent and Appellee. 

DEC 2 0 272 

Et ow. -.n G • 

urt 

0, ,.....witana 

ORDER 

Pursuant to Appellant Matthew Ryan Ailer's rnotion for extension to of tirne to file 

his opening brief and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until January 19, 2023, to file his 

opening brief. 

DATED this ?-‹ - • lay of Decernber, 2022. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

12/20/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0346
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50905

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SALVADOR DE LOS SANTOS-GARCIA, also known as Rosario Moreno,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:06-CR-90

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Salvador De Los

Santos-Garcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-53593, File No. 333-53595, File No. 333-94207, File No. 333-85288, File No. 333-88572, File No. 333-88574, File No. 333-134502, and File No. 333-141438) of our reports dated March 30, 2010 with respect to the 2009 consolidated financial statements of Macatawa Bank Corporation and the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.

| | /s/ Crowe Horwath LLP
Crowe Horwath LLP
| | ---------------------------------------

Grand Rapids, Michigan
March 30, 2010
exv10w18



 






Exhibit 10.18




December 2, 2005




Mr. Jesse P. Orsini

305 Tampico Street

Irving, Texas 75062




Dear Jesse:




     Thank you again for agreeing to serve as interim President and Chief Executive Officer of
CARBO Ceramics Inc. while the Company conducts a search for a permanent successor. At this
critical time, the Company needs you, and your presence there provides me personally with
great comfort and confidence. I am sure that the staff and other shareholders share this
view.



     As we have discussed, your appointment will be effective on December 2, 2005, and you
will have such duties and responsibilities as are consistent with your positions. You perhaps
know what they are better than we do. The Board has also elected you a Director, and they
anticipate that you will serve in that role during your employment.



     As compensation for your services, the Company will pay you $75,000 per month, in
accordance with its normal payroll practices. I know that your undertaking this job will
entail disruptions and inconveniences to you and your family, so the Company expects to pay
you for a minimum of six months (unless you are unwilling to continue serving). At the end of
six months, your employment will be extended automatically for successive one-month periods,
at the rate of $75,000 per month, unless one month’s notice otherwise is given by either of
us.



	 	 	 
	 

	 	With great respect and thanks,
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	William C. Morris
	 

	 	Chairman of the Board
	 

	 	For CARBO Ceramics Inc.






Agreed to and accepted:




	 	 	 
	 
	/s/  Jesse P. Orsini
	 	 
	Jesse P. Orsini
CAREADVANTAGE, INC.



                                   EXHIBIT 32

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


Pursuant to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, I, Dennis J. Mouras,
Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial Officer of CareAdvantage,
Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company
on Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2003  filed  with  the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
and (ii) information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: November 14, 2003         /s/ Dennis J. Mouras
                                 --------------------------------------------
                                 Dennis J. Mouras
                                 Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal
                                 Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1****PC MALL, INC.****CERTIFICATION**I, Frank F. Khulusi, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PC Mall, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 15, 2007     /s/ Frank F. Khulusi Frank F. Khulusi  Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130368 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130368 COA: 256437 Wayne CC: 01-000227 JEROME R. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

t0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 24000.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1948.

*928No appearance for appellant.

Alfred M. Clyde, Crim. Dist. Atty., and J. Elwood Winters and W. E. Myres, Asst.' Crim. Dist. Attys.,. all of Fort Worth, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, .for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is theft from the person. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of three years.

The record is before us without any bills of exception or any objections to the court’s charge. The only question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain 'his conviction.

The record reflects that on the day in question Billy Jo Steward, accompanied by her two sisters, and Mrs. Allen and her daughter, came to the City of Fort Worth to do some shopping. They parked their car on East First Street and locked the doors. At about 1:30 P.M. they started to go home. Mildred Steward, who was driving the oar, undertook to unlock the car while Billy Jo was standing nearby with her purse under her arm when suddenly a Negro man came up behind her, snatched the purse from under her arm and ran. She pursued him for a distance of two blocks when she lost sight of him. In his flight he lost his hat which Mrs. Allen picked up and later delivered to the officers who had been summoned. C. C. Eagle, a policeman, testified that he and his partner were-.on East Eighth Street when they received a radio call advising them of the occurrence. They immediately proceeded to the place indicated but before they arrived at the scene of the theft they saw a bareheaded Negro running up the street. They pursued him to the home of his aunt where they arrested him. Appellant’s aunt told the officers that she saw a man running down an alley and saw him throw something away. The officers went to the place indicated and made a search but found nothing. They returned to the home of appellant’s aunt who then went to the place where she claimed she saw the fleeing man throw something away and claimed that-she found the stolen purse and some of its contents.

Appellant was identified by Billy Jo Steward and her sister as the person who stole the purse.

 Appellant’s defense was an alibi which he supported by his own testimony and that of his aunt and another party. It will thus be noted that an issue of fact was raised which the jury decided adversely to him. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony is a matter exclusively within the province of the jury.

From what we have said it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed and it is so ordered.

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.