alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2022 WY 140

 October Term, A.D. 2022

November 9, 2022

EDGAR ALLEN STITZEL,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-22-0191

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification 

Appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Pursuant to a 

plea agreement, Appellant entered an unconditional guilty plea to one count of failure to 

register as a sex offender. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-19-302. The district court imposed a three 

to five-year sentence, which was suspended in favor of one year of supervised probation. 

Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s April 26, 2022, Order of 

Suspended Sentence and Supervised Probation.

[¶2] On September 14, 2022, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel e-filed a 

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 

S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently entered an Order 

Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief. This Court ordered that, on 

or before October 31, 2022, Appellant was permitted to file with this Court a pro se brief 

specifying the issues he would like the Court to consider in this appeal. This Court also 

provided notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would make 

its ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this 

appeal. This Court notes that Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the 

time allotted.
[¶3] Now, following a careful review of the record and the Anders brief submitted by 

appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be 

granted and the district court’s Order of Suspended Sentence and Supervised Probation

should be affirmed. It is, therefore,

[¶4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel 

for Appellant Edgar Allen Stitzel, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for 

Appellant; and it is further

[¶5] ORDERED that the Albany County District Court’s April 26, 2022, Order of 

Suspended Sentence and Supervised Probation be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶6] DATED this 9th day of November, 2022.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

KATE M. FOX

Chief Justice
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In connection  with the Annual Report of Loudeye Corp.  (the  "Company") on
Form 10-5 for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Jeffrey M. Cavins,
Chief Executive  Officer and President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that 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; and

     2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
the date of the financial statements contained therein.



----------------------------------------------
Jeffrey M. Cavins
Chief Executive Officer and President
March 19, 2004




                                       85
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24074]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 467 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-70, K2025-68.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24074 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This
Amendment No. 2 to Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 7th day of June 2014 by and between Advanced BioEnergy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the
“Company”), and Richard Peterson, a resident of Minnesota (“Employee”). Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined have the meanings set forth in the Original Agreement (as defined below). 

RECITALS: 
 WHEREAS,
Employee entered into a Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with the Company, dated May 11, 2011 (the “Original Agreement”) that was amended effective January 18, 2013 (“Amended Original Agreement”); and

 WHEREAS, the Severance Payment is subject to the conditions set forth in Sections 2 and 3 of the amendment effective January 18,
2013; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to continue Employee’s employment after the Term set forth in the Amended
Original Agreement, to pay the Severance Payment, and to make certain other changes to the Amended Original Agreement as set forth in this document. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as
follows: 
 AMENDMENT 
  

	 	1.	Employment; Term. 

 Section 1 of the Original Agreement is replaced in its entirety
with the following: 
 “Subject to all terms and conditions hereof, the Company will employ Employee, and Employee will continue to
serve the Company and perform services for the Company, on an “at will” basis after June 7, 2014, or until Employee’s employment terminates under Section 11.” 

 

	 	2.	Severance 

 A new Section 1.A “Severance Payment” is added to read as
follows: 
 The Company hereby agrees to pay to Employee the Severance Payment of $570,000 as defined in Section 12(a)(2) of the
Amended Original Agreement on or before June 13, 2014. 
  

	 	3.	Payments Upon Termination of Employment 

 Section 12 of the Amended Original
Agreement is deleted in its entirety. 
  

	 	4.	Other Matters. 

 Except as specifically amended herein, all terms and
conditions of the Amended Original Agreement remain in full force and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the day and year first written
above. 
  

			
	ADVANCED BIOENERGY, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Scott A. Brittenham

	Name:	 	Scott A. Brittenham
	Its:	 	Chairman of the Board of Directors
	
	EMPLOYEE
	
	 /s/ Richard Peterson

	Richard Peterson
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS, Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 I, Russell Van Zandt certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Veridien Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in
this annual report; 4. The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter
(the small business issuers fourth physical quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting. 5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers
auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small
business issuer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 small business issuers internal control. over financial reporting. Date:
November 2, 2005
    
    
    
    /s/ Russell Van ZandtRussell Van ZandtChief Financial Officer
 36
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 352

To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to require that

Federal agencies consult with State agencies and county and local governments on environmental impact statements.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 3, 1999

Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. HELMS, Mr. CRAPO,

Mr. GRAMS, and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

to require that Federal agencies consult with State agencies and county and local governments on environmental

impact statements.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State and Local Gov5 ernment Participation Act of 1999’’.
2

•S 352 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONSULTATION WITH STATE AGENCIES AND COUN2 TY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ON ENVIRON3 MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS.

4 Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental

5 Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is amended

6 in the first sentence after clause (v) by striking ‘‘any Fed7 eral agency which has’’ and by inserting ‘‘each Federal

8 agency, State agency, county government, and local gov9 ernment that has’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,183
<SECURITIES>                                     1,686
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,661
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                       (823)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       792
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,915
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,975
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,890)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,890)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (721)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,611)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.38)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4808-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4808-DR), dated August 20, 2024, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued October 15, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 20, 2024.

Lincoln and Sarpy Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-24659 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Martin L. Shealy, plaintiff in error, *vs.*McClung & Dykes, defendants in error.

1. Where the acknowledgment of service on the bill of exceptions antedates the certificate of the Judge thereto, the writ of error will be dismissed. (R.)

*4862. The acknowledgment of service upon the bill of exceptions cannot be shown to bear a wrong date by *aliunde*proof. (R.)

3. An acknowledgment “of due and legal service,” and a waiver “of copy and all other and further service,” does not cure a defective service, which arises from the fact of an attempted service before the certificate of the Judge was attached to the bill of exceptions. (R.)

Practice in the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court. July Term, 1873.

When the above stated case was called, counsel for defendants moved to dismiss the writ of error for want of service of the bill of exceptions. The certificate of the Judge was dated June 13th, 1873. The only evidence of service was the following acknowledgment:

“We acknowledge due and legal service of the within bill of exceptions, waiving copy and all other and further service. This 12th of June, 1873.

(Signed) “ Cook & Crisp, Defendant’s attorneys.” Counsel for plaintiffs in error proposed to show by his own affidavit, that the date of the acknowledgment of service was a mistake; that such acknowledgment was, in fact, given subsequent to the certificate of the Judge. This the Court refused to permit. He then insisted that if the service was defective, it was cured by the terms of the acknowledgment.

The Court ordered the writ of error dismissed.

J. R. Worrill, for plaintiff in error.

Cook *&*Crisp, for defendants.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. GABRIEL ATEH OPATA , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cr - 00177

- CCE

- 1; 1:18

- cv - 00689

- CCE

- JEP )

Submitted : September 30, 2022 Decided: November 9, 2022

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ , Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Gabriel Ateh Opata, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6212 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/09/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Gabriel Ateh Opata seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Opata’ s 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion, as amended . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justic e or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denie s relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the dis trict court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Opata has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Opata’s motion for a certificate of appealability and for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decision al process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6212 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/09/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Bunde, Appellant, vs. Badger Carpet Dyers, Inc., Respondent.

*November 3*—

December 2, *1952.*

*623
      *Herman M. Knoeller,*attorney, and *Truman Q. McNulty*of counsel, both of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Lamfrom, Tighe, Engelhard & Peck,*attorneys, and *Francis X. Krembs*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Krembs.*

Martin, J.

The only question on this appeal is as to the true measure of damages.

It is clear from the record that the rug here involved is presently unsalable. Mr. John Walbridge, the expert witness, set a value upon the rug, before cleaning by the defendant, of $1,500 to $1,600. This testimony is credible and uncontra-dicted and we must accept it as a verity. The value of an article of this nature, no longer available on the market, is not a subject of common knowledge.

*624In our opinion the rule of cost of reproduction less depreciation is not a proper one to use in this case. The circuit court took the minimum life expectancy of fifty years, deducted thirty years’ use, and allowed plaintiff to recover the balance of its value. The life expectancy of a rug would depend largely upon the care it was given and the use to which it was put, but this fact was not taken into consideration by the circuit court, although the record shows that it had exceptionally good care by plaintiff and his parents and that for many years it had less than average use and wear.

Under the facts of this case the proper measure of damages is the' value of the property before delivery as against its value when returned. As stated in 6 Am. Jur., Bailments, p. 394, sec. 294, the general rule is “that the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the property immediately before, and its value immediately after, it was damaged.” See also 8 C. J. S., Bailments, p. 364, sec. *55; Chapleau v. Manhattan Oil Co.*(1922), 178 Wis. 545, 190 N. W. 361.

The judgment must be modified to allow plaintiff $1,500 damages, the minimum value of the rug, as testified to by the expert, immediately prior to bailment.

The trial court by stipulation allowed defendant $117 for services previously rendered. No appeal was taken from that part of the judgment. Defendant should be allowed this credit against the amount of damages herein set forth. Plaintiff shall be entitled to interest at the legal rate from the date of judgment.

*By the Court.*— Judgment modified as set forth in the opinion and, as so modified, is affirmed. Appellant to have his costs on this appeal.