alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10053

Conference Calendar

 

RAY LOUIS JOHNSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-1603-P

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ray Louis Johnson, Texas prisoner # 683523, has appealed the

district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus as

untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); nevertheless, Johnson

failed to raise that issue in his initial appellate brief. The

Respondent has moved the court to dismiss Johnson's appeal for

his failure to preserve the issue. That motion is GRANTED. 

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); United 
No. 98-10053

-2-

States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir. 1989). The

appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
National Reconnaissance Expands Website

29 October 1998

The National Reconnaissance Office is proud to announce its Educational Outreach Page, 

dedicated to helping school children (and even adults) learn more about space and science.
_ 

111111111111111 11111 NRO APPROVED FQR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015i 

1369 OCT 2 PM 2 32 

RR RUXQBAA 

DE RUXQAA 091 2 75 1325 

R 02 18241 

BT 

XXXXX 

4 13 

--51—t-R--C---T-02 1624Z OCT 69 C IT 105 

DOR IAN SECUR. 

FOR GENERAL BLEYMAIER FRON4 COLONEL FORD, INFO MR. RUTTER, 

THE FOLLOWING IS A SUGGESTION WHICH HAS PROBABLY.ALREADY 

ACCURRED TO YOU, BUT I THOUGHT IT MIGHT 8E USEFLL TO MENT ION 

IT. I AM SURE THAT THE OCCASION WILL ARISE 1N CONGRESSIONAL 

TESTIMO 'AND MANY OTHER FLACES OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR SO WHERE NY 

THE QUESTION WILL BE ASKED CONCERNING HOW MUCH OF THE MOL 

INVENTORY WE MANAGED TO SALVAGE AND PUT TO-GOOD USE. THEREFop, YOU MIGHT WISH TO TASK THE TCOS TO SET UP AN INFORMAL 

REPORTING SYSTEM WHICH: A. IDENTIFIES AND DESCRIsEs MAJOR 

ITEMS OF THE -!,OL INVENTORY (MAYBE WE DEFINE A MAJOR ITEM AS 

ONE WHICH HAS A VALUE OF $1 MILLION OR MORE); B. THE DISPOSITION 

CF THE ITEM; C. USE TO WHICH THE ITEM WILL BE APPLIED; 

D. AND THE ESTIMATED DOLLAR VALUE OF THE ITEM. 

I AM REASONABLY SURE THAT TFESE DATA WILL PROVE TO BE 

OF CONSIDERABLE VALUE AND I AM FAIRLY SURE THE QUESTION WILL 

EiE ASKED. WOLLO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR VIEWS. 

ST 

NN
FIRST M
& F CORPORATION





EXHIBIT
32.1





SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of First M&F Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hugh S. Potts, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002, that:





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





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





Date:
            November
      15, 2010





/s/ Hugh S. Potts, Jr.Hugh
      S. Potts, Jr.Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1029EA

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Shelton Earl Corley, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: June 16, 1998

Filed: June 19, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Shelton Earl Corley appeals the district court's denial of Corley's motion t o enforce his plea agreement. Corley sought enforcement of the government's agreement to dismis s two weapons charges in exchange for Corley's guilty plea to a drug charge an d his continuing cooperation. Under a second plea agreement, however, th e gover nment

dismissed the drug charge and the weapons charges. We conclud e Corley's appeal is mooted by the dismissal of the challenged charges and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 837/2006

of 6 June 2006         

establishing a prohibition of fishing for Greenland halibut in ICES zone of II a (EC waters) IV, VI (EC and International waters) by vessels flying the flag of Spain

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries' resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to common fisheries policy (2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2006 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. It shall be prohibited to retain on board, tranship or land such stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 June 2006.

For the Commission

Jörgen HOLMQUIST            

Director-General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs

----

(1)OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p 59.

(2)OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (OJ L 128, 21.5.2005, p. 1).

(3)OJ L 16, 20.1.2006, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 742/2006 (OJ L 130, 18.5.2006, p. 7).

----

ANNEX

----
*March 4, 1930.*

#### Treves, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Richard P. Murray*of Marinette, attorney, and *Daniel J. O’Hara*of Iron Mountain, Mich., of counsel.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *John W.*Reynolds, attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

For the respondents Federal Rubber. Company and another : *Olin & Butler*of Madison.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed; no costs to be taxed.
#### Kulkee, Respondent, vs. Uecker, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dodge county dated August 22, 1927: C. M. Davison, Judge.

Malicious prosecution. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *Clark & Lueck*of Beaver Dam.

For the respondent: *George A. Hartman*and *Eugene E. Clifford,*both of Juneau.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
```

                                                                     Exhibit 32

                              FIRST M & F CORPORATION

                              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of First M&F Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh S. Potts, Jr.,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date:    May 7, 2004

                                                               /s/ Hugh S. Potts, Jr.
                                                              -------------------------------------
                                                              Hugh S. Potts, Jr.
                                                              Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of First M&F Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert C. Thompson, III,
Treasurer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date:    May 7, 2004

                                                               /s/ Robert C. Thompson, III
                                                              -------------------------------------
                                                              Robert C. Thompson, III
                                                              Treasurer
```
(a.)     Exhibit 2.1    Agreement and Plan of Merger dated November 1998
                        by and between Besicorp Group Inc., BGI Acquisition 
                        and BGI Acquisition Corp (excluding the exhibits and 
                        schedules thereto). The omitted schedules and exhibits
                        are identified below.

                        Schedule or Exhibit       Description

                        Schedule  3.2.1           Lease Terms
                        Schedule  3.2.2           Schedule of Retained Assets 
                                                  and Permitted Liabilities
                        Schedule  4.2.1           Subsidiaries
                        Schedule  4.2.4           Required Consents
                        Schedule  4.2.5           Stock
                        Schedule  4.2.6           Subsidiaries  
                        Schedule  4.2.9           Liabilities
                        Schedule  4.2.14          Tax Returns    
                        Schedule  4.2.15          Tax Liabilities 
                        Schedule  4.2.16          Issues with Taxing Authorities
                        Schedule  4.2.17          Miscellaneous Tax Matters
                        Schedule  4.2.19          Contracts
                        Schedule  4.2.20          Partnership Contracts
                        Schedule  4.2.21          Plans
                        Schedule  4.2.23          Litigation
                        Schedule  4.2.25          Compliance with Laws
                        Schedule  4.2.27          Owned Real Estate
                        Schedule  4.2.28          Leased Premises
                        Exhibit   A               Form of Indemnification 
                                                  Agreement
                        Exhibit   B               Form of Escrow Agreement
                        Exhibit   C               Form of Legal Opinion of
                                                  Purchaser's Counsel
                        Exhibit   D               Form of Legal Opinion of 
                                                  Company's Counsel
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7124

LEE ODIS ALFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MACK JARVIS; PATRICIA L. CHAVIS, Defendants - Appellees, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-663-5-H) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Odis Alford, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Lee Odis Alford appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Alford v. North Carolina Dep’t of Correction , No. CA-98-663-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 1999). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
“SEP 20 1956
SUBSET. Security Consiterstions Relevant to Weapon aystem 107

tg OO
ne Wy ROC
ce AFCRE

System Development Directi:
” Hoe un, "advanced Recomaissance System", dated 17 Angust 1956;

“Your Center hes, in the past, supported both the technical
development anf plaming’ uapeste of tae siject Bystes aad in the
future, will be called upon to provide further assistance consistent.
with the requirements of the System and available resources.

3. In onder that the provisions of paragraph 4 a(1) of the
~ above referenced System Development Directive can be met, it is re-
; quested that your Center provide to the Western Development Division,

iL

-powasaakn: a 33
INTERVALS; NOT: AUT MATICALLY
* DECLASSIFIED, “Dt “DoD ‘DIR: 5200.10,

coe ayia

yea.



*.
the “sensitive aspects" area distribution will de further guided by
the “nesd~to-know” rosters maintained by Western Development Division.
"FOR THE COMMANDER:
Co CHARLES H. TERHUNE, JRa
Coloel, USAF. a
af Deputy Commandel ~~ : .
Lindl: . . |". CHARLES H, TERHUME, JR.
6 Clys Master os Colonel,
Guide (U) Technical, Operations -
: :
io .
d
Exhibit 32.2





Certification Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) by ProElite, Inc., (“Registrant”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his 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 Registrant as of and for the periods presented in the Report.





Date: November 18, 2011











/s/ Charles R. BearchellCharles R. Bearchell

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 10.21


 


[Company
Letterhead]


 


July 9,
2008


 


Robert
Scroop


XXXXXXXXXXXX


San
Diego, CA 92129


 


	
   

  	
  Re:

  	
  Employment,
  Separation and General Release Agreement

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  dated
  February 14, 2008

  



 


Dear
Bob:


 


Reference
is made to the above-referenced agreement (the “Agreement”).  Such Agreement provides for your Separation
Date as August 14, 2008.  By
execution of this letter agreement, the parties acknowledge that they would
like to extend the Separation Date to October 14, 2008.  No other terms of the Agreement shall change.


 


Please
acknowledge your consent to the change in your Separation Date by signing the
below acknowledgement and returning it to me at your earliest convenience.


 


Very
truly yours,


 


	
  OVERLAND
  STORAGE, INC.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Vernon A. LoForti

  	
   

  
	
  Vernon
  A. LoForti

  	
   

  
	
  President
  and CEO

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ACCEPTED
  AND AGREED:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
        /s/
  Robert Scroop

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
   Robert Scroop
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 24

- 00283

- CR

__________________

EX PARTE DANIEL TROY LEBLANC

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24DCCR0520

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 14, 2024, Daniel Troy Le B lanc filed a notice of appeal from the
denial of relief on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for a reduction in bond. The
clerk’s record shows that Le B lanc posted bond on August 15, 2024. The Sta te moved to dismiss the appeal. The appellant did not object to the suggestion of mootness. An appeal of a denial of habeas corpus relief based on the inability to make
bail is rendered moot when the appellant posts a surety bond and is released from custody. Ex parte Guerrero , 99 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).2 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 27, 2024 Opinion Delivered August 28, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00087
- CV

Adrianne James , Appellant

v. Javier Lascar and Brittany Peacock , Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C
- 1
- CV
- 20
- 005714 , THE HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD , J UDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a forcible

- detainer action. Pursuant to Marshall

v. Housing Authority of City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782 , 787 (Tex. 2006), a court of appeals only maintains jurisdiction over an appeal of a forcibl e detainer action if there remains a live controversy between the parties over the right to “current, actual possession” of the property.
T he Court was u nable to determine , based on its review of the record , whet he r it c ould exercise jurisdiction over thi s appeal. Accor dingly, on January 19, 2022 , the Court asked Appellant to respond and explain how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over the cause. In ad dition, we cautioned that failure to timely respond might res ult in dismissal of this appeal. Appel l ant ’ s
response was due on January 31 , 202 2

. To date, Appellant has not filed a response. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (b), (c) (allowing
dismissal for failure to co mply with any n otic e requesting a respons e ); Ugarte v. Eureka2 Holdings Acquisitions, LP , No. 03

- 20

- 00083

- CV, 2021 WL 2064902, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin May 21, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing forcible

- detainer appeal where appellant failed to respond t o notice reque s ting clarification of basi s of jurisdic tion).

__________________________________________ Edward Smith , Justice
Before C hief Justice Byrne , Justic e s Ke lly and Smith
Dismis sed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: March 1, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                 1,478,355
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              4,469,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  4,448,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                4,469,470
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 44,590
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               119,983
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (75,393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (75,393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (75,393)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### Carruther's *v.*Tillman.

This was an action on the case for a nuisance, and overflowing the lands of the Plaintiff, by erecting a mill-dam ; and evider.ee was given of overflowing about thirty or forty acres of low land, which before the erection was usually overflowed at high water.

*Per curiam*

Wiihams and Haywood. Justices

This action lies for any overflowing of the Plaintiff’s land, the maxim being, you must so use your own, as not to prejudice another’s properly ; but the action may be con- ' tinned from time to time, del the Defendant, is compelled to abate tho nuisance $ every continuance thereof after apre-*577ceding action, being considered as a new erection — the first action is .regarded as a trial of the question, whether a nuisance ..r no! — therefore it is not proper, in the first instance, to give exemplary damages, but such only as will compensate for actual loss, as killing the timber or overflowing a field, so as to prevent a crop being made upon it, and the like. But where the abating the nui-sanee will restore the lands to the same value, and use as before the nuisance, and no real loss lias been as yet sustained, the damages should he small; but if after this the nuisance should be continued, and a new action brought, then the damages should be so exemplary as to compel an abatement of the nuisance. There was a verdict for the Plaintiff, and six-pence damages.

*Note*— Vide - v. *Deberry,*and the note thereto, *ante*248.
#### Weiser, Respondent, vs. Bunday and another, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Pierce county dated May 17, 1927: George Thompson, Judge.

Action on contract. Judgment in favor of plaintiff, from which defendants appeal.

For the appellants: *A. S. Pearson*of St. Paul and *Lynn PI. Ashley*of Hudson.

For the respondent: *White & White*of River Falls.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.