alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion for Detention - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

LOUIS CHARLES WASHINGTON III (2) 

NO. 3:22-CR-094-X 

 

MOTION FOR DETENTION AND CONTINUANCE

 The United States moves for detention of above-named defendant pursuant to 

Crim. Rule 32.1(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. §3143(a). 

 1. Eligibility of Case. This case is eligible for a detention order because the case 

involves (check all that apply): 

 Crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §3156); 

 Maximum sentence life imprisonment or death 

 X 10 + year drug offense 

 Felony, with two prior convictions in above categories 

 X Serious risk defendant will flee 

 X Serious risk obstruction of justice 

 Felony involving a minor victim 

 Felony involving a firearm, destructive device, or any other 

 dangerous weapon

 Felony involving a failure to register (18 U.S.C. § 2250) 

Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 17 Filed 04/01/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 38
Motion for Detention - Page 2

 Petition for Supervised Release Revocation was filed 

2. Reason for Detention. The Court should detain defendant because there are no 

conditions of release which will reasonably assure (check one or both): 

 X Defendant’s appearance as required 

 X Safety of any other person and the community 

 3. Rebuttable Presumption. The United States will invoke the rebuttable 

presumption against defendant because (check one or both): 

 X Probable cause to believe defendant committed 10+ year drug 

offense or firearms offense, 18 U.S.C.§924(c) 

 Probable cause to believe defendant committed a federal crime of 

 terrorism, 18 U.S.C. §2332b(g)(5) 

 Probable cause to believe defendant committed an offense involving 

 a minor, 18 U.S.C. §§1201, 2251 

 Previous conviction for “eligible” offense committed while on 

 pretrial bond 

 Probable cause to believe Defendant violated terms of supervised 

 release, FRCP 32.1(a)(6). 

4. Time For Detention Hearing. The United States requests the Court conduct the 

detention hearing, 

 At first appearance 

 X After continuance of 3 days (not more than 3). 

Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 17 Filed 04/01/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 39
Motion for Detention - Page 3

 

April 1, 2022. 

 Respectfully submitted,

 CHAD E. MEACHAM

 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

 /s Suzanna O. Etessam 

 _______________________________ 

 SUZANNA O. ETESSAM 

 Assistant United States Attorney

 Bar No. 17572420 

 1100 Commerce Street, Third Floor 

 Dallas, Texas 75242-1699 

 Telephone: 214-659-8643 

 Facsimile: 214-659-8803 

 Email: Suzanna.Etessam@usdoj.gov

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on counsel for the 

defendant in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on April 1, 2022. 

 /s Suzanna O. Etessam 

 _______________________________ 

 SUZANNA O. ETESSAM 

 Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 17 Filed 04/01/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 40
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.17(b)

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                             SOFTWARE SPECTRUM, INC.
                          1998 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

         WHEREAS, Software Spectrum, Inc. (the "Company") has heretofore adopted
the Software Spectrum, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "1998 Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the 1998 Plan provides for the grant of up to 200,000 stock
options with or without tandem stock appreciation rights, performance units
and/or shares of restricted stock; and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to those provisions of the 1998 Plan permitting the
Board of Directors of the Company to amend the 1998 Plan from time to time, the
Company desires to amend the 1998 Plan to increase the shares available for
grant thereunder by 200,000, for an aggregate of 400,000 shares to be available
for grant thereunder;

         NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of July 1, 1999, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows:

                                      FIRST

         The second sentence of Section 6 of the 1998 Plan is hereby amended to
read in its entirety as follows:

         Subject to the provisions of paragraph I.10, the number of shares of
Stock available under the 1998 Plan for the grant of Stock Options with or
without tandem Stock Appreciation Rights, Performance Units and Restricted Stock
shall not exceed 400,000 shares in the aggregate.


The remaining provisions of the 1998 Plan shall remain in full force and effect
and shall not be impacted by this Amendment.
Order entered September 18, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01002-CV

VALPAK DIRECT MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant

V.

COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A., Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-03570-2018

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 14, 2018 unopposed motion for an extension of 

time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to October 11, 2018.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 

UNITED ST ATES OF AMERICA 

', :- (,,-: ,ii.\,, 

-'l 

v. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 5:22-CR-034-H-BQ-4 

RODRIGO GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count Ten of the Superseding Indictment, charging defendant with a 

violation of 21 US.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841 (b)(J)(C), that is, Distribution and Possession with 

Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine. After examining Defendant under oath the 

undersigned magistrate judge finds the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BV Document 522 Filed 11/02/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1471
2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen (14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed November 2, 2022. 

Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BV Document 522 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1472
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          56,171
<SECURITIES>                                    41,204
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,600
<INVENTORY>                                        299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,978
<PP&E>                                          52,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,010
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,207
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       231,553
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,680
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   302,270
<SALES>                                         64,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,927
<CGS>                                           10,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,115
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,191)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,585)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,963)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,622)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,622)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of *SOURCECORP*, Incorporated, a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Companyfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  May 12, 2005 | /s/ Barry  Edwards            |   |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Barry  Edwards                |
|                     | Executive  Vice President and |
|                     | Chief  Financial Officer      |

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code). /

 

----
#### STATE v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO. et al. ELMS v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO. et al.

Nos. 27214, 27215.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 6, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1943.

Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and Cecil C. Rotsch and Fagan Dickson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

W. E. Jones, of Longview, for W. C. Elms, Jr.

Frank J. Scurlock, Turner, Rodgers & Winn, and Prentice Wilson, all of Dallas, H. P. Smead, of Longview, James B. Henderson and H. C. Walker, Jr., both of Shreveport, La., Barksdale Stevens, of Houston, W. F. Semple and Y. P. Broome, both of Tulsa, Old., I. C. Underwood, of Marshall, 'W. W. Mason, of Mexia, Smith & Smith, of Fort Worth, and Robert F. Higgins and Fountain, Cox & Sandlin, all of Houston, for Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. et al.

CRITZ, Justice.

This case is before us on the two applications for writs of error above indicated. The appeal is from Cause No. 6066, W. C. Elms, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Bascom Giles et al., Appellees, decided by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Sixth Supreme Judicial District of Texas, at Texarkana. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, which is reported in 173 S.W.2d 264, makes a full and correct statement of the facts and issues of this case. An examination of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals shows that the district court dismissed *589this case because of the lack of necessary-parties defendant. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirms such judgment of dismissal.

The State of Texas contends that, even if the district court was correct in dismissing this cause for lack of necessary parties defendant, it should have set aside the order of the Commissioner of the General Land Office refusing this application for a vacancy, and then dismissed this cause without prejudice to the right of W. C. Elms, Jr., to file a new application, and without prejudice to the right of the State of Texas, through its Attorney General, to file a new suit under the authority of Article 5240, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes. Of course, if the district court properly entered judgment dismissing this cause for lack of necessary parties defendant, it properly did not attempt to act on the order of the Land Commissioner one way or the other.

We refuse the applications for writs of error filed in this cause by the State and by Elms, because we are of the opinion that the district court properly dismissed this cause for lack of necessary parties defendant. In regard to this matter we approve the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. The legal effect of such dismissal is left as an open question, to be decided in any future legal proceedings involving the subject matter of this litigation.
--- -)1A-0/ 

Douglas 

Gibbons 

. J. , J. 

evidence for abuse of discretion, and . . . will not interfere with the district 

court's exercise of its discretion absent a showing of palpable abuse." M.C. 

Multi-Family Dev. v. Crestdale Assocs., 124 Nev. 901, 913, 193 P.3d 536, 

544 (2008). The record on appeal does not support appellant's contention 

that the district court abused its discretion in requiring certain exhibits to 

be redacted or in limiting the evidence to be presented or the testimony of 

appellant's treating physicians. Further, the record on appeal does not 

show that appellant properly objected to any of the instructions given to 

the jury or that she filed written requests that the district court include 

certain instructions, and appellant has not indicated in her appeal 

statement which of the instructions she objects to or what instructions she 

sought that were denied. NRCP 51; Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 

Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (recognizing that arguments not 

presented to the district court are considered waived on appeal). As to 

appellant's arguments regarding any improper contact between 

respondent's counsel and a juror, the record on appeal shows that the 

juror at issue was dismissed and replaced by the alternate juror. 

Accordingly, as we perceive no abuse of discretion by the 

district court, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A • . 

2 
cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge 

Consita B. Brooks 

Samuel B. Benham 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1758. JENNA WHITLOCK v. MICHELLE VAN HEMERT BRANTON.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. After the

magistrate court issued a judgment in favor of the plaintiff Michelle Van Hemert

Branton, the defendant Jenna Whitlock appealed to superior court.«v2 6-7, 9» The

superior court also issued a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and Whitlock filed this

direct appeal.«V2 1, 58» We lack jurisdiction. 

“[A]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of lower

courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings shall be by application for discretionary

appeal.” Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003); see also

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), (b). Because Whitlock did not file an application for

discretionary review, we lack jurisdiction, and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 10, 2022

01/10/2022
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7


                        RESTATED INTERCOMPANY NOTE: DEVON

$30,570,000                                                    February 22, 2000


                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, DEVON POWER LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, (the "Borrower"), hereby promises to pay to the order of NRG
NORTHEAST GENERATING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its successors
and assigns (the "Lender"), on demand in lawful money of the United States in
immediately available funds, at the office of the Lender located at 1221
Nicollet Mall, Suite 700, Minneapolis, MN 55403, the principal sum of THIRTY
MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,570,000) or, if less, the
aggregate unpaid principal amount of the loan remaining outstanding hereunder.

                  The Borrower also promises to pay as interest on the unpaid
principal amount hereof semi-annually on June 15 and December 15 of each year,
beginning on June 15, 2000 in like money at said office from the date hereof
until paid, an amount equal to four and one tenth percent (4.1%) (its
"Proportionate Share") of the interest due in respect of certain bonds issued by
the Issuer pursuant to an indenture entered into by the Issuer, certain
guarantors thereto and the Chase Manhattan Bank, as trustee, of even date
herewith.

                  The Borrower may voluntarily prepay this Note, in whole or in
part provided, however, the Borrower may not prepay more than its Proportionate
Share of the principal amounts set forth in Schedule A hereto before the date
specified on such schedule without the prior written consent of the Lender. The
Lender shall record all such prepayments of principal, and the principal sum due
under this Note shall be reduced accordingly.

                  The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, protest or
notice of any kind in connection with this Note. All amounts payable under this
Note are payable without relief from valuation and appraisement laws.


<PAGE>   2


                  This Restated Intercompany Note shall be construed in
accordance with and be governed by the law of the State of New York.

                                            DEVON POWER LLC

                                            By:   /s/ Brian B. Bird
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name:  Brian B. Bird
                                                  Title: Treasurer


                                        2
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 PDI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A
for the fiscal year ended  December  31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Bernard C. Boyle,
Chief Financial 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.


A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.





/s/ Bernard C. Boyle
--------------------

Bernard C. Boyle
Chief Financial Officer
November 3, 2004
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION


I, Michael M. Morrissey, Ph.D., certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/A of Exelixis, Inc.; and


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.





/s/ MICHAELM. MORRISSEYMichael M. Morrissey, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Date: September 30, 2016
EXHIBIT 99

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

<PAGE>



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


Gordon E.  Clark,  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer,  and  Kathleen  G.
Trumpler,  Treasurer of Leeds  Federal  Bankshares,  Inc. (the  "Company")  each
certify in his or her  capacity as an officer of the Company  that he or she has
reviewed  the Annual  Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended June
30, 2002 and that to the best of his or her knowledge:

     1.   the report fully complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a) 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.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



September 25, 2002                         /s/ Gordon E. Clark
------------------------------------       -------------------------------------
Date                                       Gordon E. Clark
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


September 25, 2002                         /s/ Kathleen G. Trumpler
------------------------------------       -------------------------------------
Date                                       Kathleen G. Trumpler
                                           Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)