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

No. DA 20-0033

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JUSTIN LEE LONGTINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 15, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 7 2020

04/07/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0033
#### Steven Mark COX v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 85-200

705 S.W.2d 1

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 3, 1986

Appellant, *pro se.*

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Joel O. Huggins,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The sole issue involved in this case is whether appellant should receive credit for jail time spent in Texas from June 28, 1984 until March 31, 1985. The lower court refused to allow such credit. We affirm.

On November 28, 1983, appellant, Steven Mark Cox, pleaded guilty to charges of possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to deliver. He was sentenced to a term of seven (7) years with two (2) years suspended. He was given credit for five (5) days jail time and was ordered to surrender on January 3, *3011984 to begin serving his sentence. He failed to appear on that date, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.

On June 28, 1984, appellant was arrested in Texas on the Arkansas warrant. The State of Texas also charged appellant with crimes committed while he was there. In addition, Texas authorities refused to extradite appellant to Arkansas, choosing instead to try him on the Texas charges.

Appellant pleaded guilty to the Texas charges and was sentenced to a term of ten (10) years. The State of Arkansas placed a detainer against appellant in the Texas Department of Corrections. On or about February 24, 1985, appellant waived extradition. He was transported back to the State of Arkansas on March 31, 1985.

Appellant contends that he should receive credit for the jail time spent in Texas from his arrest on June 28,1984 until he was returned to Arkansas on March 31, 1985. In support of that contention, he cites Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-904 (Repl. 1977). It provides:

> *Credit for time spent in custody.*— If a defendant is held in custody for conduct that results in a sentence to imprisonment, the court shall credit the time spent in custody against the sentence.

In *Boone v. State,*270 Ark. 83, 603 S.W.2d 410 (1980), we explained that “ [o] ur statute requires that a defendant held in custody for conduct that results in a sentence to imprisonment be given credit for the time spent in custody against his sentence.” We went on to explain in *Boone*that credit for jail time is appropriate when the pretrial incarceration is due to inability to make bail, but that it is not appropriate when the incarceration is due wholly to unrelated charges that are based on conduct other than that for which the defendant is sentenced. Further, in *Hughes*v. *State,*260 Ark. 399-A, 540 S.W.2d 592 (1976), we held that no credit should be allowed for time spent in jail as a fugitive from justice.

Appellant was incarcerated in Texas for two reasons: (1) he was a fugitive from justice in Arkansas, and (2) he had committed other crimes in Texas. Thus, the reasons for incarceration are wholly unrelated to the conduct that resulted in *302appellant’s five-year sentence for possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to deliver. Consequently, appellant should not receive any credit for the period of time that he was incarcerated in Texas.

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., not participating.
### Grafe , Jerom e(DEP ) From : Sent : To : Subjec t donsegreilly@comcast.ne t Monday , Septembe r24 , 201 2 10:0 7P M Grafe , Jerom e (DEP) ; Fichter , Katherin e (DOT ) Re d to Blu e Connecto r

Pleas e suppor tth e Re d t o Blu e connecto rplan s t o hel p reliev e traffi ci n m yfamily' s neighborhood

. Ther e wa s apromis e t o d o thi s year' s ag o whe n th e Te d William s Tunne l wa s completed

. Sincerely , Donn aSegret i Reill y 3 0 Cottag e Par k

Roa d Winthrop , M A02152-290 7
*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 circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 97-40866 and 98-40384

Dennis Trevino,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

City of Corpus Christi, ET AL,

Defendants,

City of Corpus Christi, Texas; 

Juan Garza; Henry Garrett, Chief of Police,

City of Corpus Christi,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-96-CV-376

December 8, 1998

Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM::

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00982-CV

IN RE RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC. and Arthur McDaniels Moore, Relators

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 8, 2024

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED

Relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus on November 11, 2023. On April 29, 2024, 

relators filed an agreed motion to dismiss the mandamus petition, informing this court that a 

settlement had been reached between the parties in the underlying matter.

After consideration, the court GRANTS the motion. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ 

of mandamus is DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2023-CI-03928, in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, 

the Honorable John Gabriel presiding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 12/31/97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,659
<ALLOWANCES>                                       375
<INVENTORY>                                      7,570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,207
<PP&E>                                          39,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,227
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,034
<BONDS>                                         12,654
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,059
<SALES>                                         93,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,378
<CGS>                                           78,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        86
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (981)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    710
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (271)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        


</TABLE>
* 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. 99-40616

Conference Calendar

 

SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ REYNA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PAUL STWART; ROY CANTU, Jailer; NATHINE COATES; JANET WILLIAM;

JIMMY REEVE; SUSAN GIBBANY; ERIC ECHAVARRY; LEROY MOODY, Sheriff,

San Patricio County, State of Texas; NINA TRIVINO; WAYNE SCOTT,

Director-TDCJ; WILLIAM BROOKS; J. DE LEON; HECTOR GARZA; BOB

GILL; JORGE L. FERNANDEZ; DANNY GARCIA; MARY ANN GARZA; OMAR I.

SANCHES; ELISEO ZUNIGA; DAVID AKEN, County Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CV-674

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

April 14, 2000

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Samuel Rodriguez Reyna, TDCJ #494325, appeals the judgment

in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

suit. Reyna challenges his conviction and 11 year sentence for

burglary, seeks injunctive relief for his release from prison for 
No. 99-40616

-2-

the burglary conviction, and argues that the jury erred in

failing to award damages when it found the defendant was liable. 

Reyna has moved this court for the appointment of appellate

counsel and to supplement the appellate record. Reyna has not

demonstrated that his case presents exceptional circumstances

warranting the appointment of counsel, and the motion for

appointment of counsel is denied. The supplement to the record

is unrelated to the arguments raised on appeal, and the motion to

supplement is denied.

Reyna’s claims regarding his burglary conviction were raised

for the first time on appeal and may not be considered. See

Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.

1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 982 (2000). In addition, the

claims may not be raised until Reyna’s burglary conviction has

been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487

(1994). Reyna’s final argument is factually frivolous because

the jury found that the defendant was not liable. The judgment

in favor of the defendants is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED. MOTIONS DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DAJUAN A. DARDEN, SR.,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-30
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, District Judge Walter H. Rice

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendant.

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”)
(@OC. 20); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $5,300.00 IN EAJA FEES

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint
stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $5,300.00. Doc. 20. Based
upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met for the
reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation (doc. 20);
and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $5,300.00. As no further matters remain
pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: _G.tet4 Ue no

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00685]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration


Notice To Reestablish the Transit Advisory Committee for Safety 
Charter

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of intent to reestablish the charter for the Transit 
Advisory Committee for Safety.

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

SUMMARY:  The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the intent 
to reestablish the Transit Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS). The 
previous TRACS charter expired on September 12, 2020. The U.S. 
Department of Transportation and FTA are committed to ensuring the 
safety of the Nation's public transportation systems and reducing the 
safety risk to both riders and transit workers. Accordingly, the 
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) has determined that 
reestablishing TRACS is necessary and in the public interest.

DATES: This charter will be effective for two years from the date it is 
filed with Congress.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph DeLorenzo, TRACS Designated 
Federal Officer, Associate Administrator, FTA Office of Transit Safety 
and Oversight, (202) 366-1783, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#42082d3127322a6c06270e2d30272c382d02262d366c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ed4f1edfbeef6b0dafbd2f1ecfbf0e4f1defaf1eab0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>; or Bridget 
Zamperini, TRACS Program Manager, FTA Office of Transit Safety and 
Oversight, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#297d7b686a7a694d465d074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4612140705150622293268212930">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces the intent of the 
Secretary to reestablish TRACS as a Federal Advisory Committee in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 
U.S.C. App. 2) to provide information, advice, and recommendations to 
the Secretary and the FTA Administrator on matters relating to the 
safety of public transportation systems. TRACS will be tasked with 
providing advice and recommendations on improvements and innovations in 
transit safety. TRACS will review current challenges and innovations in 
public transportation and provide recommendations that FTA can 
implement in support of safety in the public transportation sector.
    This notice is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act. Please see the TRACS website for additional information 
at https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/transit-advisory-committee-safety-tracs.

Nuria I. Fernandez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-00685 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Aircraft Maintenance

Date Time Technician Acircraft Hours Scheduled MaintenanceRepairs Part Replacement Details
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00382

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF B.S., A C HILD §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 30th District Court

of Wichita County ( 186,705

- A )

January 6, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the

trial court is reve rsed and re manded

. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand

this case to the trial court for f urther proceedings consistent with this opinion

.

It is further ordered that Appellee shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let

execution issu e.

S ECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana W omack

Justice Dana Womac k
Case: 3:18-mj-00140-PBS Doc #: 5 Filed: 03/13/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 68
Exhibit 31(b)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350

               UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gerald Couture, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of RMS TITANIC, Inc., the
registrant;

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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I, along with the CEO, am responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5. I, along with the CEO, have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

..

Date: June  14, 2005



/s/ Gerald  Couture
-------------------
Gerald Couture,
Chief Financial Officer
#### Nora VEASEY *v.*Roscoe Daniel JOSHLIN

74-214

516 S.W. 2d 596

Opinion delivered December 23, 1974

*Dodds, Kidd, Hendricks & Ryan,*for appellant.

*Gail 0. Matthews,*for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Appellant Nora Veasey sued appellee Roscoe Daniel Joshlin for personal injuries and property damages arising from an automobile collision. A settlement in the case was reached but Nora Veasey subsequently retracted her commitment to settle. The trial court held that the agreement, reached between the attorneys and with the consent of the parties, was binding and consequently not subject to rescission. Judgment was entered for the amount of the settlement. Nora Veasey concedes that the law concerning the validity of a compromise settlement is adverse to her position; however, she contends that she was denied her constitutional right of trial by jury. Ark. Const., art. 2, § 7.

On April 5, 1974, Joshlin’s attorneys submitted to Ms. Veasey’s attorneys an offer to settle the case for 112,500. Three days later Ms. Veasey’s attorneys submitted to her the offer. She accepted it and authorized her attorneys to consummate the settlement. The case was scheduled for trial on April 9 and Mrs. Veasey’s attorneys notified the clerk to remove the case from the trial docket. Joshlin’s attorneys im*423mediately transmitted the check and release to Ms. Veasey’s attorneys. Thereafter, and on April 12, Ms. Veasey called her attorneys and informed them that she changed her mind and wanted to retract the settlement. In her testimony at the hearing on motion for entry of judgment, Ms. Veasey testified that after deliberating on the offer for “a day or so” she notified her attorneys to effect the settlement; but then she talked to her husband and it was decided that the amount offered was too small. There was no contention of fraud or overreaching.

Judge Miller concisely stated the rule in *McKenzie*v. *Boorhem,*117 F. Supp. 433 (1954):

> Under the Arkansas law, an attorney has no implied authority to enter into a compromise agreement. *Turner Furnishing Goods Company*v. *Snyder,*201 Ark. 699, 146 S.W. 2d 913; *Cullin-McCurdy Construction Company*v. *Vulcan Iron Works,*93 Ark. 342, 124 S.W. 1023. However, when a client gives his attorney specific authority to enter into a compromise agreement, such an agreement, if entered into by the attorney, is valid and binding. *Byford*v. *Gates Brothers Lumber Company,*216 Ark. 400, 225 S.W. 2d 929; *Moore*v. *Murrell,*56 Ark. 375, 19 S.W. 973; 30 A.L.R. 2d, 944-958; 5 Am. Jur., Attorneys at Law, § 98, Pages 318-329; 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client, § 105, p. 928 et seq.

Ms. Veasey’s contention that the entry of the judgment deprived her of a jury trial is wholly without merit. By her action in deliberately authorizing a settlement she, of course, waived a formal trial.

Affirmed.
#### Charleston v General Motors Corporation,

No. 90822;

Court of Appeals No. 132877.
ex10_1.htm


PROMISSORY NOTE


 



	$20,000	June 14, 2010





 


 


FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Aviation Surveillance Systems, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (“Maker”) hereby promises to pay to the order of Eden Ho (“Holder”) the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000) together with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until paid.  Accrued interest and principal shall be due and payable on June 14, 2011 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 365-day year or a 366-day year, as applicable, and actual days lapsed.  Maker shall have the privilege of pre-paying the principal under this Note, without penalty or premium, at any time.  All payments hereunder shall be applied first to interest, then to principal.  All interest due and payable hereunder which is not paid when due for any reason shall be cumulated and accrue interest at the rate hereunder.


 


All parties to this Note hereby waive presentment, dishonor, notice of dishonor and protest.  All parties hereto consent to, and Holder is expressly authorized to make, without notice, any and all renewals, extensions, modifications, or waivers of the time for or the terms of payment of any sum or sums due hereunder, or under any documents or instruments relating to or securing this Note, or of the performance of any covenants, conditions or agreements hereof or thereof or the taking or release of collateral securing this Note.  Any such action by Holder shall not discharge the liability of any party to this Note.


 


This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada without regard to conflict of law principles.  Maker shall also pay Holder any and all costs of collection incurred in connection with this Note, including court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.


 







 


Aviation Surveillance Systems, Inc.


 







 


By: /s/ Eden Ho


       Eden Ho, President and CEO