alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte SMITH.

No. 19761.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1938.

Grady L. Fox, of Amarillo, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the judge of the county court of Potter county refusing to release the relator upon his application for a writ of habeas corpus.

It appears from the record that the relat- or was convicted in the corporation court of *411the city of Amarillo, Tex., upon a complaint charging him with engaging in plumbing without first obtaining a certificate of qualification from “The Examining and Supervising Board of Plumbers” of said city.

In the absence of the ordinance mentioned, as well as the evidence adduced upon the trial, this court has no choice other than to presume that the proceedings were regular and that the ordinance in question was valid.

Perceiving nothing in the record justifying a reversal of the conviction, the judgment of the county court remanding the relator to custody is affirmed. •
EXHIBIT 25

                            PHOTO CONTROL CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                   CONCERNING
                                FORM 10-K FISCAL
                                DECEMBER 31, 2000


         Each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints JOHN
R. HELMEN his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place, and stead, in
any and all capacities to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2000, and any or all amendments to such Annual Report on
other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he
might or could do in person, ratifying and confirming all that said
attorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue thereof.

Signature                                                  Date
---------                                                  ----


/s/John R. Helmen, Chief Executive Officer,
President and Director                                     March 9, 2001


/s/Curtis R. Jackels, Vice President - Finance             March 9, 2001


/s/James R. Loomis, Director                               March 9, 2001


/s/Mark J. Simonett, Director                              March 9, 2001


/s/Scott S. Meyers, Director                               March 9, 2001
Exhibit 31.1




CERTIFICATION




I, Wu Qiyou, certify that:




1.          I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Parkview Group, Inc.;




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(s) 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 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; and




5.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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: November 15, 2010

By:
/s/ Wu QiyouWu QiyouPresident (Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7412
ROBERT WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellee, and MICHAEL MOORE; GERALDINE MIRO; MR. NICHOLS; MS. ROSS; MS. JOHNSON; CAPTAIN ALBRITTON; JOHN SHU; D. L. SMITH; MR. COHEN; FRED BROWN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-96-3371-4-19BE) Submitted: May 12, 1998 Decided: June 30, 1998 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Robert Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Senn, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Robert Watson appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewedthe record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Watson v. Johnson, No. CA-96-3371-4-19BE (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 1997). We find that Watson failed to establishthat his placement in lock-up constituted an atypical and significant hardship. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Accordingly, Watson’s due process claims are meritless. See id. We find no merit to Watson’s claim that Officer Smith used excessiveforce in detaining him after he broke loose from correction officers. Officer Smith’s actions were justified by conditions then existing in the prison, including a near-riot and Watson’s own actions in breaking free from the officers. See Whitley v. Albers , 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). Further, we find that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied Watson’s discovery-related motions. See Strag v. Board of Trustees , 55 F.3d 943, 954 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating that denial of a discovery motion does not constitute reversible error where the information sought could not be used to defeat summary judgment). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-4 ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6838
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN J. LALAS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Ale xandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CR-93-239-A, CA-97-90-AM) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven J. Lalas, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Joseph Hulkower, Andrew Stuart Cowan, OFFICE OF THE 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. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lalas , Nos. CR-93-239-A; CA-97-90-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 26, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Official Journal C 199/22 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 199 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6022 June 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 199

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6022 June 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 199/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fifth supplement to the 35th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 199/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fifth supplement to the 35th complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CHRISTOPHER GRANT

NO. 2023 KW 1241

DECEMBER 4, 2023

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 

17th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafourche, No. 

589557. 

BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, AND WOLFE, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. " A court possesses inherently all powers

necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction and the

enforcement of its lawful orders, including authority to issue

such writs and orders as may be necessary or proper in aid of

its jurisdiction. It has the duty to require that criminal

proceedings shall be conducted with dignity and in an orderly

and expeditious manner and to so control the proceedings that

justice is done." La. Code Crim. P. art. 17. The trial court

should exercise its inherent authority to order that the

elevator is expeditiously repaired to guarantee that the

courthouse provides reasonable accommodations to any individual

with a disability to ensure equal opportunity to access the

court' s facilities. See La. R. S. 46: 2594( B)( 1). 

Holdridge J., dissents. I would order the trial court to

conduct the trial in question within thirty days. While the

court is required to ensure that reasonable accommodations are

made for all jurors and users of the court that have a

disability, the trial court cannot stop the District Attorney

from conducting criminal jury trials nor the people of Lafourche

Parish from having the right to criminal justice. The trial

court should arrange to use the courtrooms in the courthouse

that have working elevators so that criminal trials may be held

in the Seventeenth Judicial District in a timely manner. All

judges of the Seventeenth Judicial District Court should work

together so that criminal justice is not impeded in the parish

by the lack of elevators at the annex. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LQL1 12 p

EPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
EXHIBIT 32a

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                            OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

      I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual
Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated.


                                    /s/ E. James Ferland
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    E. JAMES FERLAND
                                    Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    February 27, 2007
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peak Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry J. Olson, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By:  /s/ Larry J. Olson

Larry J. Olson
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer



Date: January 13, 2007
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                             P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.
              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

P & F Industries, Inc.

Farmingdale, New York

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8
Registration Statement filed on February 18, 1997 of our report dated March 8,
2001, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of P & F
Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries appearing in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.

    We also consent to the reference to us under the caption "Experts" in the
Form S-8 Registration Statement.

New York, New York

March 19, 2001
#### GAMEZ v. STATE.

No. 18955.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 5, 1937.

Leonard Brown, L. B. Camp, and J. E. Greer, all of San Antonio, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty, of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is murder; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of ninety-nine years.

The indictment appears regular. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills-of exception.

Attached to the motion for new trial are three affidavits relating to certain misconduct of two of the State’s witnesses. In the order overruling the motion for new trial the trial judge stated that he heard the evidence submitted in connection therewith. In the absence of the evidence thus presented, this court must indulge the presumption in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### WALDMAN v. BARNGROVER et al.

No. 3351.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Jan. 9, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1939.

■ Gordon, Lawhon, Sharfstein & Bell, of Beaumont and R. E. Biggs,, of Liberty, for plaintiff in .error.

E.'E. Pickett, Jr., of Liberty,, for defendants'in'error'.

O’QUINN, Justice.

.¡.This, suit was.brought by Mason Barn-grpye.r against A. LI. Waldman, and the George A. Barngrover Trust Estate, of which A. J. blartel, Jr., George A. Barn-grovér and David E. O’Fiel were'Trustees, afld George A. Barngrover, Individually; sé'eMng 10 partition' certain land and the. imptovemeñts thereon, same being a portion’o'f the Jesse Devore League of land in'Liberty- County, Texas. ■

'The' case'was tried to the court and judgment rendered decreeing partition-of the property.' ’ From that judgment, plaintiff i'h'eJrbf brings this appeal.-

Plaintiff in error insists that the judgment must be reversed for want of necessary .parties defendant, that 'is because the trustees óf the trust were not made parties’ defendant to the suit, but' we h'áve 'concluded that we cannot reach that question as defendant in error Mason Barngrover has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which we think must be .sustained, for the reason that the judgment appealed from was not a final-judgment, it not disposing of all the parties. George A. Barngrover was made a party defendant in his individual capacity. There is a pleading in the record signed “Attys. for George A. Barn-grover”. It thus appearing that he made his appearance, the judgment should have disposed of him, but the judgment ,is silent as to him. He having been made á party defendant in his individual ■ capacity, and, as we construe the- record, having appeared, and' the judgment in no way disposing of him or any interest he may have individually had. in the property sought to be partitioned; the judgment was not final, and the motion to dismiss must be and the same is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. ■
pmt-ex101_312.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST

 2009 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 

 

This First Amendment to the PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust 2009 Equity Incentive Plan (this “Amendment”), effective as of September 26, 2017, is made and entered into by PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the “Company”). Terms used in this Amendment with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall the meanings ascribed to such terms in the PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust 2009 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, Section 9(d)(ii) of the Plan provides that the Board of Trustees of the Company (the “Board”) may amend the Plan at any time; and

 

WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend Section 7 of the Plan to eliminate the automatic grant for newly elected or appointed trustees.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 9(d)(ii) of the Plan, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:

 

1. Section 7(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it to read as follows:

 

Section 7.Initial Grant of Awards to Independent Trustees 

 

(a)Initial Grant of Awards. Any Independent Trustee appointed or elected to the Board for the first time may be granted (under this Plan or another applicable Trust equity incentive plan) on his or her date of appointment or election such number of Restricted Share Units as may be determined by the Board in its discretion, which Restricted Share Units shall vest as provided in the Award Agreements. Unless otherwise determined by the Board at the time of payment, each Restricted Share Unit shall represent the right to receive one Share upon the date on which the restrictions applicable to such Restricted Share Unit lapse. Restricted Share Units shall be entitled to Distribution Equivalents as provided in the Award Agreements with regard to the Restricted Share Units.

 

2. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof.

 

[Signature page to follow]

 

 



 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above.

 

PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST

 


	
By:
	
/s/ Anne D. McCallion

	
Name:
	
Anne D. McCallion

	
Title:
	
Senior Managing Director and

	
 
	
Chief Enterprise Operations Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE HAMILTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

AGUIRRE; et. al., 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15965

D.C. No. 1:04-cv-05129-OWWMJS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for Eastern District of California

Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner George Hamilton appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

FILED

APR 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15965

review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hamilton’s action without prejudice

because Hamilton did not exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning his

claims. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory

and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies). 

Hamilton’s contentions regarding equitable estoppel, access to legal

materials, defendants’ misconduct, and judicial bias are without merit. 

 Hamilton’s pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.