alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robertson *v.*Stone.

„ The appellant applied in time to the clerk for the papers, but could not procure them. The papers were, however, brought up after the 151 h day before the Urm, and a motion was made to have them filed Upon the motion’s being opposed by the appellee, it was refused upon the ground that the party had his remedy against the clerk. It seems if there had been no remedy against the clerk, the papers might have been filed.

This was an appeal from a verdict in Person County Court. , The appellant applied in time to the clerk of the County Court for the papers, but could not procure them. The papers, however, were brought up after the fifteenth day before the term, and the appellant mo\ed to have them filed, and the cause placed on the trial docket. And now at this ti rm, the appellee came in to shew cause against the motion. He insisted that if the appellant could not procure the papers from the clerk of the County *463Court, as he alleged, that was no reason for setting the cause now down for trial, as the act of *1777, c.*2, *sJ87,*had expressly provided for such a case ; u¡miely, that the clerk should forfeit fifty pounds to the appellant, and also all damages sustained by reason of such delay or refusal.

*Fer curiam*

A case happened some time ago at Eden-ton, which has been cit'd as the ground of this application ; in that case the appellant offered his appeal papers to the. clerk of the, Superior Court in the streets, not at his office, and the clerk for that reason refused to receive them, apprehending he was not bound to receive them but in his office ; and the court ordered the appeal papers to be filed, being of «pinion the appellant had no remedy against the clerk. In ibis case, as be has a remedy prescribed by law, it is proper he shall pursue that. Were his case such as siiewed hint to have been guilty of no neglect, and at the same time that he. had no remedy against the officer, the court would sustain his appeal to prevent a failure of justice, but that is not the present case.

The motion was overruled. — It might, perhaps have been improper to allow of filing the- papers by way of appeal, for the appellee might have been at the office ort the 15th day before term, to know whether they were filed o> not; but *quere,*if they might not have been brought up by *certiorari, et vide ante, Chambers*v. *Smith.*

Note. *Vide Hord*v. *Orr,*N. *C. Term Rep.*151, where this case is recognized and confirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6969

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIUS HEIJNEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:03-cr-00045-GRA-6; 8:11-cv-70051-GRA)

Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonius Heijnen, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonius Heijnen seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district 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. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Heijnen has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
52S-I5

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 04-14-00344-CR

CHRISTOPHER ALAN

LEMASTER V. THE STATE

STYLE: oftexas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED

OFFENSE: SEXUAL ASSUALT

COUNTY: BEXAR

TRIAL COURT: 186th DISTRICT COURT

DATE: 04/08/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 2013CR2869

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

CHRISTOPHER ALAN

LEMASTER V. THE ST

STYLE: TEXAS

ATE OF

Petition

CCA IS:

CCA# Sa$ mK>

APPELLANT***

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

DATE: oql/lfjOf

JUDGE: $m(!uU^—

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHE/

JUDGE

\RING IN CCA IS:
Memorandum for the Record 

Subject: Meeting with Novolyte and TSG on the Glyme SNUR on 18 August 2011 

Participants: 

Jim Love, Novolyte 

Joe Valcho, Novolyte 

Amy Breedlove, EPA/CCD 

Jennifer Seed, EPA/Risk Assessment Division 

Susan Sharkey, EPA/CCD 

Saadia Eltayeb, Technology Sciences Group (TSG) 

Beth Mileson, TSG 

Will Pettit, TSG 

The purpose of the meeting was for Novolyte to provide EPA with information about the glymes 

they produce. Novolyte mentioned that they produce 8 of the 14 glymes listed in the SNUR. 

They and TSG walked through a briefing (which has been placed in the docket) which described 

which glymes are produced by Novolyte, information on the uses of glymes, how glymes are 

used in various products, and some toxicity information for various glymes. 

They mentioned that many of the toxicity studies are rather old and it was proving difficult to 

find the full studies, rather than just the abstracts, and that more time is needed to locate the full 

studies. They planned to submit a request for an extension of the comment period. 

Amy Breedlove 

US EPA 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Chemical Control Division 

Existing Chemicals Branch 

202-564-9823
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 51638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport, Savannah, 
Georgia

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), notice is 
being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Savannah 
Airport Commission to waive the requirement that a 0.18-acre parcel of 
surplus property, owned and operated by the Savannah Airport Commission 
and located adjacent to Georgia Department of Transportation property, 
be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office, Attn: Aimee A. McCormick, Program Manager, 1701 
Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Greg Kelly, Airport Director of Savannah-Hilton 
Head International Airport at the following address: 400 Airways 
Avenue, Savannah, GA 31408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee McCormick, Program Manager, 
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260, 
Atlanta, GA 30337-2747, (404) 305-7143. The application may be reviewed 
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the 
Savannah Airport Commission to release 0.18 acres of surplus property 
at the Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport. The property will be 
purchased with intent for public roadway improvements and take over of 
long term maintenance. The location of the the land relative to 
existing or anticipated aircraft noise contours greater than 65ldn are 
not considered to be an issue. The net proceeds from the sale of this 
property will be used for airport purposes. The proposed use of this 
property is compatible with airport operations.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, 
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the 
Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on August 19, 2014.
Larry F. Clark,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-20693 Filed 8-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### State ex rel. Great Northern Railway Company, Appellant, vs. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin and others, Respondents.

*March 31*

October *5, 1909.*

*State ex rel. Northern Pacific R. Oo. v. Railroad Oommission, ante,*p. 145, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.

*Modified and affirmed.*

*182For the appellant there was a brief by *J. A. Murphy,*attorney, and. *W. M. Steele,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Louis Hanitch*and *Charles Donnelly.*

For the respondents there was a brief by the *Attorney General*for the *Railroad Commission,*by *Luse, Pouiell & Luse,*attorneys for the Minneapolis, St. Paul *&*Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company and the-*Wisconsin & Northern Minnesota Railway Company,*and by *Alfred II. Bright,*of counsel; and the causa was argued orally by *Mr. L. K. Luse*and *Mr. Bright.*

The following opinion was filed June 3, 1909:

Kerwin, J.

This case is ruled by *State ex rel. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, ante,*p. 145, 121 N. W. 919.

*By the Court..*— The judgment of the court below is modified so as to affirm the order of the *Railroad Commission*without prejudice to-the appellant’s right to recover all damages as indicated in the opinion in *State ex rel. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, ante,*p. 145, 121 N. W. 919, and as so modified is affirmed. No costs are allowed either party upon this appeal except that respondents pay th’e clerk’s fees.

Winslow, C. J., and Barnes, J., dissent.

A motion for a rehearing was denied October 5, 1909.
Argued and submitted August 24,

reversed and remanded for entry of new judgment September 28, 1983

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ROBERT EDWIN MATT, *Appellant.*

(C82-08-36733; CA A27414)

669 P2d 840

J. Marvin Kuhn, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Jan Peter Londahl, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*719PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of arson in the first degree and of conspiracy to commit the same arson. He contends he may not be convicted of both. ORS 161.485(3) provides:

> “A person shall not be convicted on the basis of the same course of conduct of both the actual commission of an offense and an attempt to commit that offense or solicitation of that offense or conspiracy to commit that offense.”

Defendant is correct, and we reverse and remand for entry of a new judgment.1

1

 The question raised in defendant’s other assignment of error was not raised in the trial court; therefore, it is not cognizable on appeal. *State v. Charles,*3 Or App 172, 469 P2d 792, *rev den*(1970), *cert den*406 US 973 (1972).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-10747) pertaining to the 1996 Key Employee Stock Plan and the
1996 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan of Dailey International Inc. of our
report dated March 13, 1998 (except Note 16, as to which the date is March 24,
1998), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Dailey International Inc. included in the Transition Report (Form 10-K) for the
transition period from May 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997.


                                         ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Houston, Texas
March 30, 1998
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 Health and Human Services

###### Administration for Children and Families

          - [OMB No.: 0970-0139]

# AGENCY:

Administration for Children and Families, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Administration for Children and Families published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 17, 2015, concerning a request for comments on a proposed information collection. The document contained an incorrect citation.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Beach, Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Division of Grants Policy, Office of Administration, Administration for Children and Families, telephone (202) 401-1539.

*Correction:*                         In the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 17, 2015, in FR. Doc. 2015-03144, on page 8324, in the third column, correct the last sentence of the “Description” caption to read: “Guidance for the content of information requested in the Uniform Project Description is based in 45 CFR 75.203 and Appendix I to 45 CFR part 75.”                    

Christopher Beach, 

Senior Grants Policy Specialist, Office of Administration.

[FR Doc. 2015-03627 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
Amendment to 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT TO THE SYNNEX CORPORATION 
 2003 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
 The SYNNEX Corporation 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as previously amended and restated (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective
December 1, 2003, as follows: 
 Section 2 of the Plan is amended by replacing subsection (f) thereof with the following new
subsection (f): 
 “(f) “Compensation” means (i) the compensation paid in cash to a Participant by a Participating
Company, including salaries, wages, incentive compensation, commissions, bonuses, overtime pay and shift premiums, plus (ii) any pre-tax contributions made by the Participant under section 401(k) or 125 of the Code. “Compensation”
shall exclude all non-cash items, moving or relocation allowances, cost-of-living equalization payments, car allowances, tuition reimbursements, imputed income attributable to cars or life insurance, severance pay, fringe benefits, contributions or
benefits received under employee benefit plans, income attributable to the exercise of stock options, and similar items. The Committee shall determine whether a particular item is included in Compensation.” 
 To record the adoption of this Amendment by the Board on September 15, 2008, the Company has caused its authorized officer to execute the same.

  

			
	SYNNEX Corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/ Simon Y. Leung
		 	Name: Simon Y. Leung
		 	Title: General Counsel and Secretary
#### Glasspoole, by guardian, Appellant, vs. McGuine, Respondent.

*September 13*—

October *4, 1910.*

*Guardians: Death of insane ward: Settlement of accounts: Title to-per sonalty.*

After tlie death of an insane ward an administrator of his estate must lie appointed before the accounts of the guardian can be* adjusted by the county court or the heirs of the ward can acquire title to his personalty.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Buffalo-county: E. W. Helms, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *C. M. Hilliard*and *Theodore Buehler,*and for the respondent, on that of *S. 0. Gilman.*

*295WiNsuow, O. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Buffalo county reversing an order of tbe county court of tbe same county and vacating a previous judgment of said county court.

It is unnecessary to state tbe facts in detail. There are two questions presented by tbe record, viz.: (1) Can tbe accounts of tbe guardian of an insane ward be adjusted by tbe county court after tbe decease of tbe ward in a proceeding to wbicb tbe guardian and tbe beir of tbe ward are tbe only parties, without any administration of tbe estate of tbe ward ? ('2) In such a proceeding can tbe county court render judgment directly in favor of tbe beir and against tbe guardian for tbe amount found due by tbe guardian to bis ward’s estate? Both of these questions must be answered in tbe negative. At tbe death of tbe "ward tbe powers of tbe guardian ceased, tbe real estate descended to tbe heirs of tbe ward and tbe personal property to bis personal representative (when appointed), in tbe same manner as if tbe ward bad been sane. Sec. 3988, Stats. (1898). It follows necessarily that until tbe appointment of an administrator there was no person to be accounted with. Tbe beir bad no title to tbe personal property, no authority to represent tbe estate, and was entitled to no judgment against .the guardian, however much tbe guardian may have been indebted to tbe estate. This was tbe view intimated, though not.decided, in *Israel v. Silsbee,*57 Wis. 222, 15 N. W. 144, and was also tbe view taken by tbe circuit court.

There are no other questions of sufficient importance to require treatment.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.B


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 Quarterly Report of AutoInfo, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Wunderlich, Chief 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:




(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 result of operations of the Company.




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




Date:           August 12, 2009











/s/ William Wunderlich


William Wunderlich


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Gordon Leliever, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that:

|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 2003,
          which this statement accompanies, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
          operations of the Registrant.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:     December 1, 2004 |  | OSPREY GOLD CORP.BY: /S/ Gordon Leliever
Gordon LelieverPresident; PrincipalFinancial Officer
|-------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order entered November 6, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00674-CR

ROLAND LASHUN JERNIGAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-59314-N

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 22, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

clerk’s and reporter’s records had not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant 

desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed 

counsel; (3) counsel timely requested both the clerk’s and reporter’s records; (4) Sandra Hughes 

and Anne Meredith are the court reporters who recorded the proceedings; (5) Ms. Hughes 

explained that she was waiting for Ms. Meredith to complete her portion of the record so that a 

complete record could be filed; and (6) the Dallas County District Clerk and Ms. Hughes will file 

their respective records within thirty days of the October 29, 2013 hearing. We received the 

clerk’s record on October 30, 2013 and the reporter’s record on November 4, 2013.
Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132223 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132223 COA: 271687 Kent CC: 05-006358-FC MONIKA LATEACE McCAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 23, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2006

Clerk