alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10184 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DENNIS RAY LANIER, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CR-147-2-A

-------------------- October 29, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Dennis Ray Lanier, federal prisoner # 26215-077, appeals from the district court’s denial of his postjudgment motion to dismiss his indictment pursuant to F ED . R. C RIM . P. 12(b)(2). Lanier had pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of methamphetamine. Lanier’s motion for reconsideration was filed only one business day late and, thus, is deemed timely filed. See F ED . R.No. 02-10184 -2-

C RIM . P. 45; F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(b); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); United States v. Brewer , 60 F.3d 1142, 1143-44 (5th Cir. 1995). Similarly, Lanier’s notice of appeal, filed two business days late, is also deemed timely filed. F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(b)(3)(A), 26(a); Houston , 487 U.S. at 276. Therefore, we have jurisdiction over Lanier’s appeal. Relying upon Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Lanier argues that his indictment was defective and that the court was deprived of jurisdiction, because the indictment failed to charge a weapon enhancement and a pure methamphetamine drug classification. A defective indictment, however, does not deprive a court of jurisdiction. United States v. Cotton , 122 S. Ct. 1781 (2002). Rule 12(b)(2)’s provision that defenses and objections based on the indictment’s failure to show jurisdiction or to charge an offense “shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceedings” is thus inapplicable to Lanier’s Apprendi -based claim. Lanier’s claim therefore falls into the residual category of defects which must be raised prior to trial. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 12(b)(2). Lanier’s motion was made postjudgment, and therefore, Rule 12(b) (2) affords him no relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
& b

b

b 8

6

Ÿ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ̇.

Allegro

f

 ̇. œ œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

For ceremonial version,

jump to m.100, 2nd beat

fi

J

œ

^

‰ ‰ Œ.

choke

2

5

Œ. œ œ œ

f

 ̇. 4

& b

b

b

2 13

Œ. œ œ œ

f

 ̇. 4 2 21

Œ. œ œ œ

f

 ̇. 2

& b

b

b Œ. œ œ œ

f

 ̇.

6

29

Œ. œ œ œ

f

 ̇. 8

37

8

45

8

53

& b

b

b

8

61

2

69

Œ. œ œ œ

f

 ̇. 4 2

77

Œ. œ œ œ

f

 ̇.

& b

b

b

4 2 85

Œ. œ œ œ

f

 ̇. 2

Œ. œ œ œ

f

 ̇.

93 6

& b

b

b Œ. œ œ œ

f

fi

œ. Œ.

Ceremonial version,

from m.4

 ̇.

>

101

œ. œ.

>

 ̇.

>

J

œ ‰ ‰ œ œ œ œ. œ. œ. œ.

& b

b

b  ̇. j

œ

‰ ‰

œ.

>

 ̇.

>

109

œ j

nœ œ œ œ  ̇.

>

œ ‰ œ œ

j

œ œ. œ.

& b

b

b œ. œ.  ̇. J

œ ‰ ‰ œ.

>

 ̇.

>

117

œ j

œ

>

œ

>

j

œ

>

 ̇.

>

œ ‰ œ nœ Jœ

& b

b

b œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇. J

œ ‰ ‰ œ.

>

 ̇.

>

125

œ œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

& b

b

b  ̇.

>

J

œ ‰ ‰nœ

> J

œ

>

œ

>

œ œ œ œ œ œ

>

œ œ œ œ œ  ̇. > 2J

œ

^

‰ ‰ Œ.

f

choke

ALWAYS READY, ALWAYS THERE

The Official Song of the National Guard Bureau Words and Music by

CW4 David A. Myers

 40th Army Band, VTARNG

Bells Dedicated to the Men and Women, Soldiers and Airmen of America's National Guard
##### 



Exhibit 3.3
 
 
 Certificate of Amendment
 ULTRA
PETROLEUM CORP.
 I hereby certify that the articles of the above-mentioned corporation were amended:o under section 16 of the Business Corporations Act to change the name of the corporation in
accordance with the attached notice.o under section 30 of the Business Corporations Act as set out in the attached Articles of Amendment
designating a series of shares.þ under section 179 of the Business Corporations Act as set out in
the attached Articles of Amendment.o under section 194 of the Business Corporations Act as set out in the attached Articles of
Reorganization.o under section 195 of the Business Corporations Act as set out in
the attached Articles of Arrangement.
 
 /s/ M. Richard RobertsCorporate Access Number: 27812
    
    
    
    M. Richard RobertsDate of Amendment: 2005-05-02
    
    
    
    Registrar of Corporations




---



##### 



BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
 ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
 61.
    
    Name of Corporation:ULTRA PETROLEUM CORP.2.
    
    The Articles of the above-named Corporation wereamended pursuant to a
Court order :Yes
o   No
   þ3.
    
    The Articles of the above-named Corporation be amended as follows:Each one of the issued and outstanding Common shares of the Corporation are divided into two
issued and outstanding Common shares.4.
    
    Date: May 2, 2005Signature: /s/ James E. Nielson
Title: Director
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41077

Summary Calendar

RALPH WESLEY ROGERS, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

W.H. PALOT, Lieutenant; DAVID A. TUCK;

RODRIGUES, Sergeant; GARY JOHNSON,

Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division,

Defendants-Appellees.

* * * * *

RALPH WESLEY ROGERS, SR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TIMOTHY A. GIBBONS, M.D.;

G.L. BERRY, M.D.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(G-93-CV-59 & G-93-CV-613)

July 7, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
 

*

 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.

 

1Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S.

988 (1992).

 

2Rogers also alleged interference with his mail in another action, case

number 90-G-342, but he does not raise that issue on appeal.

2

PER CURIAM:*

Ralph Wesley Rogers, Sr. (#493394), a state prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Rogers contends that he was denied access to the courts because

prison guards interfered with the mailing of legal documents pertaining to case

number G-91-25, another 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed by Rogers against a prison

guard for physical assault. “A denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim is not valid if a

litigant’s position is not prejudiced by the alleged violation.”1 Although the district

court originally dismissed case number G-91-25, Rogers concedes that the case was

reinstated. Accordingly, Rogers has not been prejudiced by the alleged interference

with his mail and his contention is without merit.2

Rogers also contends that Doctors Berry and Gibbons acted with deliberate

indifference in changing his work restrictions so that he was eligible for assignment

to field work. Unsuccessful medical treatment, negligence, neglect, or medical
 

3Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991).

3

malpractice is insufficient to give rise to a section 1983 cause of action.3 Rogers’

mere disagreement with the doctors’ decision to change his work restrictions does

not establish a constitutional claim.

The district court’s dismissal is affirmed.
*Present*— Chancellors Rutledge, Hutso®, and Mathews.

*JUNE.*1785.

#### Executor of Clifford *vs.*Charles Clifford, a minor.

CASE XIV.

Reg. book, F 6L

Sale of minor's estate andcompen-for

Reg. book, p 81.

Bill anti answer read, whereupon ordered, that it be referred to the master to enquire whether it will be to the advantage of the minor to sell the land in bill mentioned, in preference to the personal estate: Also to report what v/ill be a compensation to the widow for her dower, and in what manner the monies arising from the sale of the land shall be applied most to the advantage of the minor.

The master afterwards made a report recommending a sale of the land, which was confirmed; and a sale was ordered on a credit — the purchase money was to be paid by five instalments.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS, AND

JOHN F. COOK, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF EL PASO,

 Appellants,

v.

TOM BROWN MINISTRIES, WORD OF 

LIFE CHURCH OF EL PASO, TOM 

BROWN, EL PASOANS FOR 

TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES,

AND BEN MENDOZA,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-16-00075-CV

Appeal from the 

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2011-DCV-02792)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

trial court’s order denying Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction. We therefore reverse the trial 

court’s order denying Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss with prejudice all of 

Appellees’ claims asserted against Appellants.

We further order that Appellants recover from Appellees the appellate costs incurred by 

Appellants, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 VAPOR CORP. 
 3001 Griffin Road 

Dania Beach, Florida 33312 
 April 30, 2013 
 VIA E-MAIL 

Kevin Frija, Harlan Press and Doron Ziv, as the holders 
 of the Senior Convertible Notes referred to below 
 Dear Messrs. Frija, Press and
Ziv, 
 Reference is made to each of your Senior Convertible Notes, dated June 19, 2012, of Vapor Corp. in the principal
amount of $100,000, as amended by that certain extension agreement, dated as of November 13, 2012 (as may be further amended, each a “Note” and together the “Notes”). All capitalized terms used in this Letter
Amendment, but not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Notes. 
 1. The purpose of this
Letter Amendment is memorialize our oral agreement to amend each Note to eliminate the redemption provision at the option of the Holder. 
 2. In accordance with Section 1 hereof, clause (d) of Section 1 (Calculation of Interest; Payments of Principal and Interest; Redemption by Holder) of each Note is hereby deleted in its
entirety and clause (e) of said Section is hereby amended to be restated as clause (d). 
 3. In connection herewith, the
Company hereby represents and warrants to each Holder that no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing under such Holder’s Note as of the date hereof and none will occur immediately after giving effect to this Letter Amendment.

 4. This Letter Amendment shall be effective as of March 31, 2013. Except as expressly amended by this Letter Amendment,
each Note shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects. This Letter Amendment constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all
prior oral or written understandings and agreements between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Letter Amendment may be executed and delivered (by facsimile, e-mail or other electronic transmission) in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. Section 10 (Governing Law; Dispute Resolution) of the Notes is hereby incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof
as if fully set forth herein. 
 [Intentionally Left Blank; Signature Page Follows] 

  
 5 








 If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please countersign and date this Letter Amendment in
the space provided below and return a countersigned and dated copy to us by e-mail. 
  

			
	 Sincerely,

	
	 Vapor Corp.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Harlan Press

	Name:	 	Harlan Press
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer


 Acknowledged and Agreed to the date hereof: 

 

					
	Each as the Holder of a Note:	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Kevin Frija
	 		 	
	Kevin Frija	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Harlan Press
	 		 	
	Harlan Press	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Doron Ziv
	 		 	
	Doron Ziv	 		 	


  
 6
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS,

Appellant,

v.

THE NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT,

d/b/a BROWARD HEALTH,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-2351

[June 10, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Carol-Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 

12028997 (25).

John J. Hearn, City Attorney and Sherry Whitacre, Deputy City 

Attorney, City Attorney’s Office, Coral Springs, for appellant.

John Herin and Jeffrey T. Kuntz of GrayRobinson, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See N. Port Rd. & Drainage Dist. v. W. Villages Improvement 

Dist., 82 So. 3d 69 (Fla. 2012). 

STEVENSON, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 07, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 07, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0087. WILHY HARPO v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16SC146980
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 99.5



                        Report of Independent Accountants



To the Board of Directors of
Key Bank USA, National Association


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report of
Management on Internal Control over Securitized Receivables, that Key Bank USA,
National Association maintained effective internal control over servicing
securitized receivables of Key Consumer Acceptance Corp. as of December 31,
1998.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of internal control over servicing of securitized
receivables, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of
the internal control, and such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

Because of the inherent limitations in any internal control, errors or fraud may
occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any evaluation of internal
control over servicing securitized receivables to future periods are subject to
the risk that internal control may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion, that Key Bank USA, National Association
maintained effective internal control over servicing securitized receivables of
Key Consumer Acceptance Corp. as of December 31, 1998, is fairly stated, in all
material respects, based upon criteria established in "Internal Control -
Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
March 22, 1999

                             



                                    Page 20
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





The
      undersigned, David Campbell, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director
      of
      Bloodhound Search Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), and Robert Horn, Chief
      Financial Officer and Secretary of BSTI, certify, under the standards set forth
      and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB of BSTI for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of BSTI.







Dated: September 11, 2006By: /s/ David CampbellName: David CampbellTitle: Chief Executive Officer, President,
              and Director (Principal Executive Officer)By: /s/ Robert HornName: Robert HornTitle: Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
              (Principal Financial Officer)




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

Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                    AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
                                     OF 1934


    The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of EduLink,
Inc. ("EduLink"), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of EduLink on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of EduLink. This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement has been
provided to EduLink and will be retained by EduLink and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


   Date: June 5, 2008             By: /s/ Ian Rescigno
                                      --------------------------
                                      IAN RESCIGNO
                                      Chief Executive Officer and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3614 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3614

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2009

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 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. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS 
              UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 
              INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to extend 
temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business Administration'', 
approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109-316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most 
recently amended by section 1 of Public Law 111-43 (123 Stat. 1965), is 
amended by striking ``September 30, 2009'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``October 31, 2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on September 29, 2009.

SEC. 2. BUSINESS STABILIZATION PROGRAM.

    Section 506(c) of title V of division A of the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) is amended by striking 
``but shall not include'' and all that follows through ``enactment of 
this Act''.

SEC. 3. NEW MARKETS VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANY INVESTMENT LIMITATIONS.

    Section 355 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 
689d) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Investment Limitations.--A New Markets Venture Capital 
company that is receiving a grant under section 358 may not issue 
debentures guaranteed by the Administrator for any 1 company in an 
aggregate amount that is more than 10 percent of the sum of--
            ``(1) the private capital of the New Markets Venture 
        Capital company; and
            ``(2) the total amount of leverage projected by the New 
        Markets Venture Capital company in the business plan of the New 
        Markets Venture Capital company in effect on the date on which 
        the Administrator granted final approval to operate as a New 
        Markets Venture Capital company under section 354(e).''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
22128

#### The STATE, Respondent, v. Arnold CULBREATH, Appellant.

(316 S. E. (2d) 681)

Supreme Court

*39
      *Asst. Appellate Defender Tara D. Shurling,*Columbia, *for appellant.*

*Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod,*and *Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr.,*Columbia, and *Sol. Robert J. Harte,*Aiken, *for respondent.*

June 7, 1984.

Lewis, Acting Associate Justice;

The question to be decided in this case is whether Circuit Court Rule 95, requiring a solicitor to take action on a warrant within ninety (90) days after its receipt by him, is jurisdictional so as to deprive the court of jurisdiction in cases where the solicitor fails to act within the ninety (90) day period. The rule itself is silent on the question. The trial judge refused to quash the indictment in this case because of the solicitor’s failure to act upon the warrant within ninety (90) days, holding that Rule 95 was administrative and not jurisdictional. We agree and affirm.

Rule 95 is an administrative rule adopted for the purpose of insuring an orderly and prompt disposition of cases in the Court of General Sessions. While the rule is designed to secure a prompt handling of cases, it was not intended to be the criterion for determining whether the constitutional guaranty of a speedy trial has been met.

*40Therefore, the failure of the solicitor to act upon a warrant within ninety (90) days, as required by Rule 95, does not within itself invalidate a warrant or prevent subsequent prosecution. However, failure to comply with the Rule would subject a solicitor to contempt proceedings.

Judgment affirmed.

Littlejohn, C. J. and Ness, Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur.