alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAMIAN E. GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

DAVID LONG, Warden; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16295

D.C. No. 1:15

- cv

- 01361

- BAM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2018 **

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ , Circuit Judges.

Damian E. Griff

i n, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due

process violations related to deductions from his inmate trust account . We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JAN 25 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 16295

judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer

, 755

F.3d 866, 867

- 68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Griffin consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Griffin’s action before

the named defendants had been served

. See 28 U.S.C. § § 1915A (a)

,

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) . Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must

consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v.

King

, 875 F.3d 500 , 503

- 04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order

and remand for further proce edings.

VACATED and REMANDED.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-88,000-01

EX PARTE JONATHAN LEE WRIGHT, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W07-34527-X(A) 

IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 6

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual

assault of a child and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Wright v. State, No. 05-14-00987-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 29, 2015) (not

designated for publication). 

Applicant contends, among other things, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective

assistance because counsel failed to advise him of his right to petition pro se for discretionary

review.
2

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. Pursuant to Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on

appeal concerning whether Applicant was notified of his right to seek discretionary review pro se. 

The trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether

Applicant’s appellate counsel timely informed Applicant that he has a right to file a pro se petition

for discretionary review. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions

of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claims for habeas

corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.
3

Filed: March 28, 2018

Do not publish
##### 



Dated:  August 8, 2007
    By:
    /s/  Louis Ploth, Jr.Louis Ploth, Jr.Vice President Business Development and
Chief Financial Officer
Repros Therapeutics Inc.
#### VICKERY v. STATE.

No. 18337.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1936.

Minick & Barnes, of Mineóla, and A. A. Dawson, of Canton, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is robbery; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for 10 years.

Upon the written request of the appellant, duly verified by his affidavit, the appeal is dismissed.
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-3 ofour report dated February 28, 2007 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in Denbury Resources Inc.’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. We also consent to the reference to us under theheading “Experts” in such Registration Statement.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
**MAXCO,
      INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**




**EXHIBIT
      32.1 - CERTIFICATION** ****





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 this annual report on Form 10-K of Maxco, Inc. (the “Company”)
      for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Max A. Coon, as Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
      This
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Date: 
      July 14, 2006




/s/
                  Max A.
                  Coon
                Max
                  A. Coon
                Chief
                  Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of CEO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ JOHN E. JACKSON

Name: John E. JacksonTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 1, 2007
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

s0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146133

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146133

COA: 305804

Saginaw CC: 10

- 034377

- FC

MARCUS DONTI HANSERD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES WYLIE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 482 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### BRADFORD v. STATE.

No. 15377.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 23, 1932.

Brownlee & Brownlee, of Madisonville, for appellant.

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

*528HAWKINS, J.

By complaint and information it was charged that appellant had transported intoxicating liquor in violation of the law (Pen. Code 1925, art. 666)'; it being further averred that he was under 17 years .of age. ' Upon trial before the court sitting for the trial of juveniles, appellant was found guilty of the offense charged against him, and the verdict directed that he be confined in the State Training' School for Juveniles for a period not to extend beyond his majority.

No written objections to the instructions to the jury were filed at the time of the trial, and apparently no exceptions were reserved to the introduction of any evidence. In an amended motion for new trial it is sought to urge many objections to the court’s instructions to the jury, and to raise many other questions, of procedure. The only bill of exception brought forward is a general bill predicated upon every ground set up in the amended motion for new trial. After all, it is only a bill reserved to the action of the court in overruling the motion. It has been held many times that accused cannot reserve for appeal complaints only set up in the motion for new trial. The matters of which he complains should be brought forward by bill of exception Showing that objections were urged at the time of the happening of the things complained of. Gann v. State, 109 Tex. Or. R. 640, 6 S.W.(2d) 751, in which many authorities are collated. See, also, Morgan v. State, 115 Tex. Or. R. 14, 27 S.W.(2d) 208. If in the motion for new trial there is pointed out for the first time some error of a fundamental nature, the trial court should take cognizance of it, and upon his failure to do so this court would review the question on appeal. We find nothing of the character mentioned in the present record.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, each of the undersigned, Lawrence J. LeBon, III, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John LeBlanc, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Lawrence J. LeBon, III                       
|                        |  |     |  | Lawrence J. LeBon, III                           
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                        |  |    
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ John LeBlanc                                 
|                        |  |     |  | John LeBlanc                                     
|                        |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been
provided to Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### COMMONWEALTH BANK & TRUST CO. v. MORRIS.

No. 9382.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 6, 1935.

Henry, Bickett & Bickett, of San Antonio, and L. B. Wiseman, of Floresville, for appellant.

Ben S. Morris, of San Antonio, pro se.

SMITH, Justice.

The controlling questions involved in this appeal were certified to the Supreme Court on June 6, 1934. On December 31, 1934, the Supreme Court dismissed the certificate upon the ground that the questions certified had become moot by reason of the fact, ascertained and declared by the Supreme Court, that the assets of appellant, Commonwealth Bank & Trust Company, had been taken over, and its affairs are being liquidated, by the State Banking Commissioner, as provided by law. *77*S.W.(2d) 871.

For a like reason, then, we conclude that the questions presented in this appeal have become moot, and the appeal must be dismissed. We understand the effect of this action is to relegate appellee to the right to have his judgment certified by the clerk of the trial court to the State Banking Commissioner' to be liquidated by him in due order of precedence.

The appeal is dismissed, the costs hereof to be assessed against the appellant and bill thereof likewise certified to the Banking Commissioner for observance.
# Official Journal C 60/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 60 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6324 February 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 60

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6324 February 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 60/01 | Euro exchange rates — 21 February 2020 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 60/01

Euro exchange rates — 21 February 2020

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 60/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9546 — Gategroup/LSG European Business) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2020/C 60/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9715 — PCG/PCC/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2020/C 60/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9690 — Savencia/Compagnie des Fromages et Richesmonts) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2020/C 60/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9646 — Macquarie/Aberdeen/Pentacom/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 60/06 | Publication of the amended single document following the approval of a minor amendment pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2020/C 60/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9546 — Gategroup/LSG European Business) (
  1
  )

1

2

2020/C 60/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9715 — PCG/PCC/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

2020/C 60/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9690 — Savencia/Compagnie des Fromages et Richesmonts) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

2020/C 60/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9646 — Macquarie/Aberdeen/Pentacom/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

6

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2020/C 60/06

Publication of the amended single document following the approval of a minor amendment pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
Memorandum

To: Docket Number 2010-1

From: Timothy Creagan

Senior Accessibility Specialist

U.S. Access Board

RE: Ex Parte Meeting

Date: June 2, 2010

On June 2, 2010, representatives of IBM held a conference call with Access Board staff members to 

discuss questions about the ICT ANPRM. Present on the call were Andi Snow-Weaver, Rich 

Schwerdtfager of IBM, and Access Board Staff members Bruce Bailey, and Timothy Creagan.
**Exhibit 23a**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-105704 on Form S-3of our report dated February 27, 2008, relating to the consolidated financialstatements and consolidated financial statement schedule of PSEG Power LLC,which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphsfor the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,*Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes –an Interpretation of FASB Statement*109 and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, *EmployersAccounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans*appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PSEG Power LLC for the yearended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Deloitte & ToucheLLP

February 27, 2008

----
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3247 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3247

To amend title 23, United States Code, to exempt covered heavy-duty tow 
 and recovery vehicles from certain weight limitations, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2015

Mr. Fleischmann (for himself and Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 23, United States Code, to exempt covered heavy-duty tow 
 and recovery vehicles from certain weight limitations, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Action for Interstate Recovery 
Vehicles on Truck Operating Weights Act'' or the ``FAIR TOW Act''.

SEC. 2. VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS--INTERSTATE SYSTEM.

    Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(m) Covered Heavy-Duty Tow and Recovery Vehicles.--
            ``(1) In general.--The vehicle weight limitations set forth 
        in this section do not apply to a covered heavy-duty tow and 
        recovery vehicle.
            ``(2) Covered heavy-duty tow and recovery vehicle 
        defined.--In this subsection, the term `covered heavy-duty tow 
        and recovery vehicle' means a vehicle that--
                    ``(A) is transporting a disabled vehicle from the 
                place where the vehicle became disabled to the nearest 
                appropriate repair facility; and
                    ``(B) has a gross vehicle weight that is equal to 
                or exceeds the gross vehicle weight of the disabled 
                vehicle being transported.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: TODD ELLIOT KOGER

PETITION OF: TODD ELLIOT KOGER

:

:

:

:

No. 5 WM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2023, the “Petition for Emergency Extraordinary 

Writ Mandamus/Prohibition” and the “Memorandum Application for Summary Relief” are 

DENIED.
Ex 10-1





 







Exhibit 10.1



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO



THE PARK CITY GROUP, INC.



SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED



2011 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and stockholders
of Park City Group, Inc. (the “Company”) have adopted the Park City Group, Inc.
Second Amended and Restated 2011 Stock Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5.1 of the Plan,
a total of 550,000 shares of the common stock, par value $0.01 per
share, of the Company (the “Common
Stock”) have been
reserved for issuance under the Plan;


 


WHEREAS,
the Company desires to increase the number of shares issuable under
the Plan to 1,250,000 shares; and


 


WHEREAS,
Sections 5.3 and 13 of the Plan permits the Company’s
Board of Directors to amend the Plan from time to time to increase
the number of shares of Common Stock authorized for issuance under
the Plan.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the following amendments and modifications are hereby
made a part of the Plan:


 



1.   Section 5.1 of the Plan shall be, and hereby
is, amended to increase the aggregate number of shares of Common
Stock issuable thereunder to 1,250,000, and such section is thereby
to read as follows:


 


“5.1.
Maximum Number of Shares Available. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 5.3
of the Plan, the maximum number of shares of Common Stock that will
be available for issuance under the Plan will be 1,250,000
shares.”


 



2.   In all other respects, the Plan, as amended, is
hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and
effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment No. 1 to
the Park City Group, Inc. Second Amended and Restated 2011 Stock
Incentive Plan as of August 3, 2017.



 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	

PARK
CITY GROUP, INC.


	
 

	
 


	

By:
/s/ Randall K.
Fields

	
 

	
 


	


Name:  Randall K. Fields



Title: Chief Executive Officer