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

4-8696

216 S. W. 2d 803

Opinion delivered January 24, 1949.

*J. E. LigMle, Jr.,*and' *U. A. Gentry,*for appellant.

Robots, J.

The State of Arkansas brought suit in the court below to confirm its title to certain lands in White county said to have been forfeited to the State for non-payment of.taxes of 1943. Among these was the tract involved herein. Appellees, claiming to be the owners and asserting that the sale to the State was void, intervened, alleged that appellant had purchased the land from the State, and asked that the certification to the State and the deed from the State to appellant he canceled. The action then proceeded as between appellant and appellees. Decree was in favor of appellees. This appeal ensued.

Several irregularities in proceedings leading up to the tax sale were set up in appellees’ intervention. We deem it necessary to consider only one of them: The failure of the clerk, before the date of sale, to append -to delinquent list certificate as to publication of the notice, showing the date of eaéh publication of the notice and the name of the newspaper in which same was published. The clerk’s certificate, challenged in the case at bar, is manifestly insufficient to meet the requirement of the statute (§ 13848, Pope’s Digest). But counsel for appellant (though they concede we held in the case of *Cecil*v. *Tisher, et al.,*206 Ark. 962, 178 S. W. 2d 655, this law not to have been repealed) urge, nevertheless, that at the time the sale was had the statute requiring the above mentioned certificate was no longer in force. Our opin*481ion in the *Cecil*v. *Tisher, et al.,*ease *supra,*has been cited and followed by ns in the following cases: *Standard Securities Company*v. *Republic Mining*& *Manufacturing Company,*207 Ark. 335, 180 S. W. 2d 575; *Johnson*v. *Johnson,*207 Ark. 1015, 183 S. W. 2d 783; and *Devore*v. *Beard,*208 Ark. 476, 187 S. W. 2d 173. We adhere to onr ruling in these cases. The forfeiture for non-payment of taxes was void, and appellant acquired no title by purchase from the State.

The decree of the lower court is affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 3.3(a)

                               AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO
                           AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS
                             OF PTEK HOLDINGS, INC.
                           (Effective April 26, 2002)

     The first sentence of Section 3.2 of Article Three of the Bylaws is hereby
deleted and replaced with the following:

          "The number of directors of the Corporation shall be fixed by
     resolution of the Board of Directors from time to time and, until otherwise
     determined, shall be between three and ten; provided, however, that no
                                                 --------  -------
     decrease in the number of directors shall have the effect of shortening the
     term of an incumbent director."
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. TUESDAY SHALON JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 20-6095 (D.C. No. 5:09- CR-00021-R-3) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MORITZ , BALDOCK , and EID , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Tuesday Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. We affirm. Johnson pleaded guilty in 2009 to dist ributing cocaine base , also known as crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Neither the indictment nor the plea agreement specified a particular quan tity of crack cocaine . Accordingly, the

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Ci r. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 25, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 statutory sentencing range for her offe nse was set by § 841(b)(1)(C), which established a lower range th an subsections (b)(1)(A) a nd (b)(1)(B) and—unlike those sections—did not include a mandatory minimum sentence. The district court ultimately imposed the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months. See § 841(b)(1)(C). In 2019, Johnson filed a motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, which allows a district court to im pose a reduced sentence if the defendant was

convicted of a covered offense committed before August 3, 2010, for which the statutory penalties had been modified by Sec tion 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372. The district court denied this motion, holding that Johnson was ineligible for re lief under the First St ep Act because the Fair Sentencing Act did not affect § 841(b)(1)(C)’s statutory penalties. In her opening brief on appeal, Johnson ar gued that the district court erred in finding that she was not eligib le for relief under the First Step Act. But she concedes that this argument has now been foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Terry v. United States that a defendant sentenced under § 841(b)(1)(C) is not entitled to relief under the First Step Act because “the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties only for subparagraph (A) and (B) cr ack offenses—that is, the offenses that triggered mandatory-minim um penalties.” No. 20-5904, 2021 WL 2405145, at *5 (June 14, 2021). Because Terry conclusively resolved the only issue3 Johnson raised in this appeal, we affirm.

Entered for the Court

Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge
#### State *v.*May.

Crim. 4052

Opinion delivered October 4, 1937.

*Jack Holt,*Attorney General, and *John P. Streepey,*Assistant, for appellant.

*Thomas W. Rowland,*for appellee.

Humphbeys, J.

The prosecuting attorney of the 7th judicial circuit of Arkansas charged, under oath, that appellee unlawfully operated in Hot Spring county, Arkansas, a pool room for hire in violation of Special Act No. '88 of the Acts of Arkansas of 1919 on the 12th day of May, 1937.

The act makes it a misdemeanor to operate a pool room for hire in said county within three miles of any school or church house finable in a sum not less than $50 nor more than $200.

*548On the trial of the cause in the circuit court appel-lee was acquitted from which judgment of acquittal the state has appealed to this court on the theory that the undisputed evidence showed that appellee was guilty as charged.

The record reflects, without dispute, that appellee owned and was operating* a pool room in said county within three miles of schools and churches, hut that prior to being charged with the offense he had sold his pool tables to a club, of which he became a member, for $700, $20 in cash and $20 per month until the purchase money should be paid; that appellee was selected as treasurer of the club and for his services in operating the pool room received $100 per month and in addition paid $40 per month to boys who racked the balls, etc., and other expenses such as rent of the room, utility bills, new equipment, etc. The revenue received by appellee consisted of membership fees of $1 per member and 50c per month for dues for each member. Anyone could get a membership who did not drink whiskey or beer. Appellee collected all the fees and dues and handled all the money he received. The windows and door were covered with Bon Ami. No one was required to knock to get in the room.

We think the sale of the pool equipment by appellee to himself and others for a small cash payment, and the continued management and control of the pool room at a fixed salary, his employment of boys to help operate the room, the collection of all membership fees and monthly dues, and the payment by him of all expenses incident to the operation of the pool room was a mere device, artifice and subterfuge to avoid the penalty of the act prohibiting the operation of the pool room for hire.

A pool room run for hire in the form of membership fees and monthly dues and which is open to the public upon the payment of membership fees is just as vicious in its tendencies and as injurious to public peace and good morals, as if run for so much per game. Its tendencies, such as leading to idleness, gambling and *549other vices are just the same whether operated for so much per game or for dues and fees.

In view of our conclusion it follows that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury to find appellee guilty of operating a pool room for1 hire contrary to said act, and on account of the error the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Smith and Baker, JJ., dissent.
NO. 07-01-0347 -CR NO. 07-01-0348 -CR NO. 07-01-0349 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L A SEPTE MBE R 4, 2001

______________________________ ANTHONY RAY ARC HER, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 47 TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUN TY; NOS. 41,448-A , 41,450-A, 41,452-A ; HONORA BLE RIC HARD D AMB OLD, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. Appellant Anthony Ray Archer attem pts to appeal three separate convictions, after guilty pleas, of aggra vated r obbery for w hich he w

as sentenced to 15 yea rs confinemen t in theIns titu tion al D ivis io n o f the Departm ent of Crim inal Justice on each charge. Howeve r, we m ust dism iss the appeals for wan t of jurisdiction.2

In each case, sentence w as pronounced in open court on February 9, 200 1, but appell ant’s notices of appeal were not filed until August 21, 2001. A tim ely filed notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. Oliv o v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). To be ti mely, a notice of appeal must be fil ed within 30 days after thesen ten ce is

im pos ed o r su spe nde d in open court. Tex. R. App. P. 2 6.2(a )(1) . An appellate cou rt may e xt end th e time to file a notice of appeal if a motion seeking an extension of time is filed within 15 days after thedea dlinefor

filin g th e no ticeof a ppe al. Tex. R. A pp. P. 26.3. In this instance, appellant did not file his notices of appeal until at least five mon ths after

the deadline for doing so, and he did not file a mot ion for extens ion of time.
Because the notices of appeal were not timely filed , we hav e no jurisdiction to consider these appeals. Accordingly, we m ust and do hereby dism iss these appeals.
Per Curiam Do not publish.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF:

SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANTS, 

APPLICATIONS, PEN REGISTERS, AND

NON-DISCLOSURE ORDERS IN THE 

CASES LISTED IN ATTACHMENT A

CASE NO. ____________

MAGISTRATE JUDGE VASCURA

UNDER SEAL

ORDER TO SEAL

Upon motion of the United States of America and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, Non-Disclosure 

Orders, and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A remain sealed, and the Clerk is 

instructed not to unseal the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, and NonDisclosure Orders and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A until July 31, 2020, 

or upon a motion by the United States and additional order by the Court. 

Dated: _______________________ _____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/31/2020 /s/Chelsey M. Vascura

Case: 2:18-mj-00374-EPD Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/31/20 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 38
ATTACHMENT A

2:17-MJ-277 

2:17-MJ-299 

2:17-MJ-303 

2:17-MJ-337 

2:17-MJ-358 

2:17-MJ-388 

2:17-MJ-479 

2:17-MJ-506 

2:17-MJ-533 

2:17-MJ-538 

2:17-MJ-559 

2:17-MJ-608 

2:17-MJ-609 

2:17-MJ-626 

2:17-MJ-675 

2:18-MJ-001 

2:18-MJ-072 

2:18-MJ-073 

2:18-MJ-082 

2:18-MJ-112 

2:18-MJ-113 

2:18-MJ-114 

2:18-MJ-130 

2:18-MJ-131 

2:18-MJ-132 

2:18-MJ-160 

2:18-MJ-164 

2:18-MJ-216 

2:18-MJ-262 

2:18-MJ-263 

2:18-MJ-280 

2:18-MJ-281 

2:18-MJ-289 

2:18-MJ-327 

2:18-MJ-374 

2:18-MJ-375 

2:18-MJ-383 

2:18-MJ-431 

2:18-MJ-538 

Case: 2:18-mj-00374-EPD Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/31/20 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 39
2:18-MJ-539 

2:18-MJ-557 

2:18-MJ-576 

2:18-MJ-631 

2:18-MJ-745 

2:18-MJ-746 

2:18-MJ-748 

2:18-MJ-837 

2:18-MJ-838 

2:18-MJ-860 

2:18-MJ-879 

2:18-MJ-880 

2:19-MJ-002 

2:19-MJ-003 

2:19-MJ-017 

2:19-MJ-018 

2:19-MJ-076 

2:19-MJ-131 

2:19-MJ-132 

2:19-MJ-133 

2:19-MJ-205 

2:19-MJ-206 

2:19-MJ-781 

2:19-MJ-848 

2:19-MJ-835 

2:19-MJ-861 

2:19-MJ-931 

2:19-MJ-925 

2:19-MJ-938 

2:20-MJ-041 

Case: 2:18-mj-00374-EPD Doc #: 9 Filed: 01/31/20 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 40
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.2


AMENDMENT FIVE
TO THE
PERRIGO COMPANY
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


WHEREAS, Perrigo Company, a Michigan corporation (the “Company”), maintains the Perrigo Company Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2007 (the “Plan”), and as subsequently amended; and


WHEREAS, the Company deems it desirable to amend the Plan to streamline its administration;


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the amendment authority reserved to the Company and delegated to the Perrigo Company Retirement Plan Committee, subsections 3.3(b) and (c) of the Plan are amended to read as follows effective for deferral elections made on or after September 1, 2015:
		
	“(b)
	Subsequent Plan Years.  A Participant’s deferral election shall apply to all subsequent Plan Years until revoked or altered in accordance with the terms of the Plan (an “evergreen election”); provided, however, that the Participant’s election shall become irrevocable as of each December 31 for Base Annual Salary, Annual Bonus or Directors Fees payable for services to be rendered in the Plan Year immediately following such December 31.


		
	(c)
	Special Election for Section 409A Performance Based Annual Bonuses.  Notwithstanding subsection (b) above, if the Committee determines that an Annual Bonus eligible for deferral satisfies the requirements of “performance based compensation” within the meaning of Code Section 409A, any election to defer such Annual Bonus must be made no later than the date which is six months prior to the end of the performance period, and a Participant’s evergreen election to defer such Annual Bonus shall become irrevocable on the date which is six months prior to the end of the performance period (i.e., the election shall become irrevocable on June 30 of the calendar year performance period in which such June 30 occurs).  Any deferral of an Annual Bonus shall be made in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the Committee.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 17th day of August, 2015.






	
		
	 
	PERRIGO COMPANY

	 
	 

	By
	/s/ Michael Kelly

	 
	Its: Chairman, Retirement Committee
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-2 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 5274
EXHIBIT 32

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 Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its 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 the Trust.



|               |  |                                         |  |                    
|-------------- |  | --------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|               |  | Bank of America, N.A.,                 
|               |  | Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|               |  |                                        
|April 25, 2008 |  | By                                      |  | /s/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|               |  |                                         |  | Nancy G. Willis    
|               |  |                                         |  | Vice President
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Rogatto, Daniel A." <DARogatto@rrienergy.com>

Date: 7/20/2010 2:33 PM

Subject: Re: RRI Avon Lake Plant Request for ICR Extension

Attachments: pic23623.jpg; 20100629131747861.pdf

Greetings,

EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent

guidelines questionnaire for the RRI Energy's Avon Lake Plant. The

deadline for your plant to submit Version 2 of the completed

questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010.

If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric

questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at

steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic23623.jpg)

 

 From: "Rogatto, Daniel A." <DARogatto@rrienergy.com> 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Cc: "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com>, "Lackowski, Claude M." 

<CMLackowski@rrienergy.com>, 

 "Laeng, Robert W." <RLaeng@rrienergy.com> 

 

 Date: 06/29/2010 02:02 PM 

 Subject: RRI Avon Lake Plant Request for ICR Extension 

Ms. Alicea,

 Please find attached correspondence for EPA’s consideration to extend

the deadline to complete and comply for the RRI Avon Lake Plant effluent

ICR requirements.

If you have any questions, please call me.

Dan Rogatto(See attached file: 20100629131747861.pdf)
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                            VERSO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
              STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                          YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------
                                                                                  2000               1999               1998
                                                                                --------           --------           --------
                                                                                 (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
<S>                                                                             <C>                <C>                <C>
Net loss attributable to common shareholders                                    $(55,482)          $ (9,838)          $ (6,483)
                                                                                ========           ========           ========
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                              25,903             23,728             22,731
                                                                                ========           ========           ========
Basic net loss per common share                                                 $  (2.14)          $  (0.41)          $  (0.29)
                                                                                ========           ========           ========
Shares used in diluted net loss per share calculation:
    Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                          25,903             23,728             22,731

    Additional shares assumed outstanding from dilutive stock
       options, warrants and convertible subordinated debentures
       used in diluted loss per share calculation (a)                                 --                 --                 --
                                                                                --------           --------           --------
                                                                                  25,903             23,728             22,731
                                                                                ========           ========           ========

Diluted net loss per common share                                               $  (2.14)          $  (0.41)          $  (0.29)
                                                                                ========           ========           ========
</TABLE>

(a)  since stock options, warrants and convertible subordinated debentures are
     antidilutuive to the loss per common share calculation, they are not
     considered in the loss per share calculations in 2000, 1999 and 1998.
##### 



NOTICE: THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION PURSUANT  TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT
 NONCOMPETITION, SEVERANCE AND EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
Between
CAROLINA FIRST BANK and MICHAEL W. SPERRY
  Factual Recitals
   Agreement
  Employment
 Definitions




---



##### 








---



##### 



Duties
 Term




---



##### 



Termination
 The Company
     By Executive




---



##### 



Compensation provided
 Annual Salary
 2007 Incentive Bonus
 Long Term Incentive Compensation Plan




---



##### 



(i)
    
    All Executives unvested time-based awards of LTIP restricted
stock (i.e. 2,367 shares) shall be vested at the end of the Term.(ii)
    
    At the end of the Term, TSFG shall vest any stock options held by
Executive that are not under water on March 31, 2008. In addition, all vested
stock options held by Executive upon expiration of the Term may be exercised on
or before the earlier of March 31, 2009 or the expiration date of such stock
option (which is ten years after issuance).
 Supplemental Executive Benefit Plan
 Deferred Compensation
 Miscellaneous Benefits
 Term Life and Other Insurance
 Excess Parachute Payments
 Confidentiality




---



##### 



Noncompetition and Nonsolicitation Agreement
      Trust




---



##### 



Assignment
 Notices.
 To the Company:
    
    The South Financial Group, Inc.Poinsett Plaza104 South Main StreetGreenville, South Carolina 29601Attn: Mary A. JeffreyTo Executive:
    
    Michael W. Sperry219 Abbot TrailGreenville, SC 29605
  Provisions Severable
 Remedies in the Absence of a Change in Control




---



##### 



Remedies in the Event of a Change in Control
   Waiver




---



##### 



Amendments and Modifications
 Governing Law
 409A Compliance
     Withholding
 Entire Agreement
  2




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 EXECUTIVE/s/Michael W. SperryMichael W. SperryCAROLINA FIRST BANKBy: /s/ Mary A. JeffreyTitle: Executive Vice PresidentTHE SOUTH FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.By: /s/ Mary A. JeffreyTitle: Executive Vice President
 3