alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE EX REL. Bobby Charles BYRD v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0533

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a *1223successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Exhibit 24.1
 
 STATE OF TEXAS       §
 COUNTY OF DALLAS            §
 
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
 Know all men by these presents, that I, WILLIAM H. HENDERSON, a Director of AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint JEFFREY A. WILLIAMS my true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, pursuant to the requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009 and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission and National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in my stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual Report, incorporating such changes as said attorney-in-fact deems appropriate, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact, or his substitute may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 14th day of July, 2009.
 
 
 /s/ William H. Henderson
 WILLIAM H. HENDERSON
 
 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 
 Before me this 14th day of July, 2009, came WILLIAM H. HENDERSON, personally known to me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of Attorney and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.
 
 
 /s/ Brenda Rogers
 NOTARY PUBLIC
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature:

Project No.: 0172.09.005.412 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: 304m 2012 Annual Review CBI?

Yes

No

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Incoming

Outgoing

Date: 01/25/12 Time: 8:50 am

pm

Company Name: Iowa Department of Natural Resources ERG Staff Name: Elizabeth Sabol

Contact Name: Adam Schieders, Wendy Heeb Contact Phone Number: (515)281-7409

General Subject: Meat and Poultry Facility Discharges

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I contacted Adam Schieders of the Iowa DEP on January 25, 2012 and was unable to leave a message. I called 

the following days: 

January 30, 2012 – left a message;

February 3, 2012; and 

February 7, 2012 – left a message.

Mr. Schieders returned my call on February 7, 2012 and left a message asking me to return his call with the 

facility name and NPDES ID. I was able to leave the requested message on February 13, 2012.

On February 13, 2012, I was able to contact Wendy Heeb (515-281-7804) who stated that the facility is a 

complex slaughter house, with no nitrate/nitrogen permit limitations. Ms. Weeb stated that the facility permit is 

old and has not been renewed because the class of the receiving water is still being determined. Because of the 

ELGs, the new permit will have a total nitrogen limitation.
Leland M. INMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1975

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

Leland M. Inmon, Orlando, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
lov, 3, 2008 4:14PM mchae l a. pizz i jr . No. 4225 P. 2 

FAA PART 16 AIRPORT PROCEEDINGS DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. 16-08-05 

ALCA, Inc., Cylinder Shop, Inc., 

Suncoast Aviation, Aircraft Parts 

and National Aviation, 

Complainants, 

vs. 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Respondent. 

/ 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TDVp: TO FILE REPLY BRIEF 

Petitioners, hereby file tbis Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief 

and in support thereof would show: 

1. Petitioners have filed a Part 16 Complaint against Miami Dade County; 

2. The County filed its response after a several month delay and 

received a several month time extension; 

3. On October 1,2008, a motion for extension of time was filed and granted by 

the FAA; 

4. Undersigned counsel had instructed staff to request an extension of time until 

November 15,2008; 

5. The motion inadvertently limited the extension of time to November 1,2008; 

6. On October 7,2008, undersigned counsd assumed duties as Mayor of Miami 

Lakes in Dade County and has been required to spend much of October 2008 

assuming those duties; 
lov, 3. 200 8 4:14PM michae l a. pizz i jr . No. 422 5 P. 3 

7. Undersign counsd had sought extensions in aSk of his pending cases, until 

sometime in early mid November, due to these circumstances; 

8. There have been some changes in the status of Ae parties within the past 

thir^ (30) days that need to be accounted for in preparing a reply; 

9. A final extension of two (2) weeks on a matter of this importance, will not 

prejudice a reply. 

WHEREFORE: undersign counsel and petitioners request an extension of up until 

November 15,2008 to submit tiieir reply brief in this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MICHAEL A. PIZZI, Jr., P.A. 

Attorney for Defendant 

15271 NW 60* Avenue 

Miami Lakes, f133016 

Phone: 3052312121 

FAX: 305 2312123 

E-mail: mpizziir(a),vahoo»yom 

By:_ 

f) 

Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., £^ 

Florida Bar No. 07954 
Nov. 3. 2008 4:14PM michael a. pizzi jr. No. 4225 P. 4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Reply Brief was mailed/FAXed to: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings 

Docket 16-08-05 

Room 925, Federal Aviation Admmistration 

800 Independrace Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Jennifer TTrock, Esq. 

Pillsbuiy Wmthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 

2300 N. Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Michael A. Pizzi, Jr.,'^£sq.
Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, William B. Yarmuth, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Almost Family, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are 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, or caused such
        disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
        to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includ-
        ing its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
        those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
        being prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
        procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
        effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
        of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this 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; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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 control over financial reporting which are
        reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
        record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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:   March 31, 2005

BY  /s/ William B. Yarmuth
    ----------------------
    William B. Yarmuth
    Chairman of the Board, President &
    Chief Executive Officer
Edmond Kennies BURKE v. STATE

CR-15-1469

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
EX PARTE Travis WESLEY

CR-16-0376

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
M.H.S., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-966

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Daryl Emory BRUNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2110

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 19-40838 

Conference Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Daniel Mendoza, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:18-CR-188-1 

Before King, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Daniel Mendoza has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Mendoza has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

October 2, 2020 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 19-40838 Document: 00515588023 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2020
No. 19-40838 

2 

allow us to make a fair evaluation of Mendoza’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without 

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir. 2014). 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Mendoza’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 19-40838 Document: 00515588023 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2020
**EPA ICR No. 2195.04 OMB Control No. 2070**  **- 0169**  **ATTACHMENT G Wage Rates Calculation for**  **EPA or Federal Government**

(NAICS: 999100) **Labor Category: Formula**  **Managerial Technical**  **Clerical** Unloaded Hourl y Rate 1 = W $55.64 $33.23 $20.06 Benefits Percentage 2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44% Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.26 $14.49 $8.75 Loaded Hourl y Rate Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb) $79.90 $47.72 $28.81 Overhead Percentage 3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50% Overhead per hour OH = Wb*L o $39.95 $23.86 $14.40 Fully L oaded Hourly Rate Wf = Wb + OH = W + B + OH $119.85 $71.58 $43.21 1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm **May 2010 data** NAI CS 999100 - Federal Executive Branch Standard Occupational Codes: Management: 11 - 0000, Management Occupations Technical: 19 - 0000, L ife, Physical, and Social Science Occupations Clerical: 43 - 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. The average for non farm, non federal civilian workers. 3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency , EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition , EPA - 452 - 02 - 001, January 2002, pg. 2 - 34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20 - 70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1164 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1164

  To require the Secretary of the Interior to remove the Emancipation 
 Memorial from Lincoln Park in the District of Columbia, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 2021

 Ms. Norton (for herself and Mr. Rush) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of the Interior to remove the Emancipation 
 Memorial from Lincoln Park in the District of Columbia, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emancipation Statue Removal Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF EMANCIPATION MEMORIAL.

    (a) Removal.--The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the 
Emancipation Memorial is removed from Lincoln Park in the District of 
Columbia.
    (b) Donation.--The Secretary shall donate the Emancipation Memorial 
to a museum or other similar entity. The recipient of the Emancipation 
Memorial may not store, display, or exhibit the Emancipation Memorial 
outside. If the Emancipation Memorial is stored, displayed, or 
exhibited outside, ownership of the Emancipation Memorial will revert 
back to the Federal Government.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          132,896
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   433,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                    110,272
<INVENTORY>                                      20,502
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 46,258
<PP&E>                                          822,988
<DEPRECIATION>                                  354,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,267,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           300,144
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                            737
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,445,915)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,267,719
<SALES>                                         532,534
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                532,534
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   533,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (8,053)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (2,279)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8,603
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8,603
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.12



</TABLE>
I n t he m ot i on t o di sm i ss, H er nande z st at es t ha t thi s C our t was ad v i sed o f t he b ankr upt cy 1

p ro c e e d i n g

. N o n o ti c e o f b a n k ru p tc y a p p e a rs i n th e re c o rd

. 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0075 7-CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS

T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS

C O R P U S C H R IS T I
- 

## EDI NBURG

JOE ESPIN OZA

A ND M A RIA

ESP INOZ A

, A pp ellan ts,

v.

DA NIEL M .L. HER NA ND EZ

, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rt a t L aw N o . 5 of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas

.



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION

Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam

Appel lan ts , Joe Es pin oz a and Ma ri a Es pin oz a ( “t he Es pin oz as” ), appeal from t he

tr ial court ’s order

gr anti ng summary

judg ment to appell ee, Dani el He rn andez

. Her nandez

filed a M oti on to D is mis s sta ti n g t h a t the matt er sh oul d be dis mis sed becau se the

under ly ing j udg ment had been dis mis sed in bankr uptc y co urt. A re spons e w as re q uest ed.

1

T he Esp inoza’s response state d tha t the y are not opp ose to the m otion to dism iss.2

The Cou rt , hav ing consi der ed th e doc uments on fil e and the u noppos ed moti on to

dis mis s the appeal, is of the opini on that the motion shoul d be g ra nted. See T EX

. R. A PP

.

P. 42 .1(a). App ellee’s m otion to dism iss is gr ant ed, a nd th e ap pea l is here by DISMISSE D.

Cos ts w il l be ta x ed ag ain st appel lan ts. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2.1( d) ( "Abse nt ag re ement of

the p ar ti es, the cour

t w il l tax co sts ag ain st the a ppel lan ts. "). Hav ing di smi ss ed th e appea l

at th e pa rties’ req uest , no m otion f or rehea ring w ill b e e n t ertain ed, and our ma nda te w ill

is sue forthw it h.

PER C UR IAM

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 20t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           STATER BROS. HOLDINGS INC.
                    CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
          (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT NUMBER OF SHARES AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                          13 Weeks Ended                  39 Weeks Ended
                                                          --------------                  --------------
                                                        June 27,      June 25,         June 27,      June 25,
                                                          1999          2000             1999          2000
                                                        --------      --------         --------      --------
<S>                                                     <C>           <C>              <C>           <C>
Net income (loss)                                       $  3,211      $  1,874(1)      $  9,234      $ (7,227)(1)
Less preferred dividends                                      --            --               --            --
                                                        --------      --------         --------      --------

Net income (loss) available to common shareholders      $  3,211      $  1,874         $  9,234      $ (7,227)
                                                        ========      ========         ========      ========

Earnings (loss) per common share                        $  64.22      $  37.48         $ 184.68      $(144.54)
                                                        ========      ========         ========      ========

Average common shares outstanding                         50,000        50,000           50,000        50,000
                                                        ========      ========         ========      ========

Common shares outstanding at end of period                50,000        50,000           50,000        50,000
                                                        ========      ========         ========      ========
</TABLE>


(1) Reflects a one-time extraordinary gain of $1.1 million ($1.9 million net of
tax effect of $0.8 million) connected with the retirement of bonds.