alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>




                             AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE

    THAT CERTAIN Promissory Note ("NOTE") dated October 17, 1997, in the
principal sum of EIGHT MILLION and NO/100 DOLLARS ($8,000,000), made by EAGLE
HARDWARE & GARDEN, INC., a Washington corporation, ("BORROWER") and payable to
KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ("LENDER"), is amended as follows:

    1.   The definition of Adjustment Date in Section 1.1(a) of the Note is
replaced with the following:

              ADJUSTMENT DATE means the date of this Note and the fifteenth
              (15th) day of each calendar month hereafter.

    2.   Section 2 of the Note is replaced with the following:

              2.   PAYMENTS.  On the 15th day of November, 1997, and on the
              same day of each month thereafter, Borrower shall make monthly
              payments of principal and interest consisting of the sum of:  (a)
              all interest accrued through the last payment date, and (b) a
              payment of principal in the amount of SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX
              HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX and 67/100 DOLLARS ($66,666.67).

    The Note, as amended hereby, is affirmed and ratified.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower and Lender have signed this Amendment
effective as of this 1st day of November, 1997.


                                       "LENDER"

                                       KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national
                                       banking association

                                       By:    /s/ Shelly L. Schwab
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Name:  Shelly L. Schwab
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Title: Senior Loan Closing Officer
                                             -----------------------------

                                       "BORROWER"

                                       EAGLE HARDWARE & GARDEN, INC., a
                                       Washington corporation

                                       By:    /s/ Ronald P. Maccarone
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Name:  Ronald P. Maccarone
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Title: EVP/CFO
                                             -----------------------------
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lori D. BLAKELY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-6163.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2004.

Decided: May 28, 2004.

Lori D. Blakely, Appellant pro se.

Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Lori D. Blakely seeks to appeal the dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion entered on August 20, 2003. Blakely, however, did not file her notice of appeal until January 12, 2004,* which is outside the sixty day appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Blakely’s “Motion to *454Extend Time to File Out>-of-Time Appeal” was filed on December 15, 2003, beyond the thirty-day period allowed under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5). Thus, the district court’s order granting the motion could not extend the appeal period. *Shah v. Hutto,*722 F.2d 1167, 1168 (4th Cir.1983). The appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

Blakely’s pro se motion to extend and notice of appeal, in which she alleged that she did not timely receive notice of her action being dismissed, may be properly construed as a motion to reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). *United States v. Feuver,*236 F.3d 725, 729 & n. 7 (D.C.Cir.2001). Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for it to determine whether Blakely can satisfy the requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). *Ogden v. San Juan County,*32 F.3d 452, 454 (10th Cir.1994). We express no opinion as to whether Blakely has met the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED*

*

 This court has given Blakely the benefit of *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), regarding the filing dates of her documents.
**EXHIBIT23.1**

# **CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued ourreports dated June 4, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedule and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of RentrakCorporation on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2007. We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference of said reports in the RegistrationStatements of Rentrak Corporation on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-44865, 333-28565,333-39021, 333-62523, 333-110781, 333-110782 and 333-136466).
| /s/ Grant Thornton LLP |   |
|------------------------|--------|
| Portland, Oregon       |
| June 4, 2007           |

 

----
EX PARTE Jason Jermaine HALL

CR-14-1442

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Mobile Cir. Ct.
Joseph MODESTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-327

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESSICA BIXLER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of 

the Social Security Administration,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-35864

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03045-TOR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 6, 2015

Seattle, Washington

Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Jessica Bixler appeals the district court’s affirmance of the denial of her 

application for Social Security Supplemental Security Income. We vacate and 

remand for further proceedings.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in evaluating the vocational 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

FILED

JUL 21 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

expert’s testimony. The ALJ discounted Bixler’s first hypothetical even though 

that hypothetical was based on evidence—Section I of a Mental Residual 

Functional Capacity Assessment (“MRFCA”), from an acceptable medical 

source—that the ALJ herself had previously credited. The ALJ’s stated reasons 

for rejecting Bixler’s first hypothetical to the vocational expert contradict the 

ALJ’s decision to credit Section I of the MRFCA. 

Because the vocational expert’s testimony was critical to the ALJ’s analysis 

at step five, see Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1100-02 (9th Cir. 1999), we 

cannot say that the ALJ’s error in evaluating that testimony was harmless. We do 

not reach the question of whether there was substantial evidence on the record as a 

whole supporting the denial of benefits, because the ALJ’s errors in analysis 

require further proceedings. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment and 

remand to the district court with instructions to remand this case to the agency for 

further proceedings.

We need not reach Bixler’s other arguments. Costs on appeal are awarded 

to Bixler.

VACATED and REMANDED.
NEXION HEALTH AT MINDEN, INC. d/b/a Meadowview Health and Rehabilitation Center v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & Louisiana Divison of Administrative Law

NO. 2018-CC-0544

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

Denied.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-67,986-02

EX PARTE DAVID SHAWN JOHNSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1234531D

IN THE 372 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FROM TARRANT COUNTY

ND

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

prohibited weapon and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his sentence is illegal because there is an improper deadly weapon

finding on the judgment. On November 17, 2015, the trial court signed the State’s proposed findings

of fact and conclusions of law recommending that relief be granted and the judgment be reformed.

Applicant may be entitled to relief. Ex parte Petty, 833 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). 
However, habeas should not be used as a substitute for other avenues of relief. See Ex Parte Nelson,

137 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). It appears from the record that the deadly weapon finding

was a clerical error. There is no indication of any judicial reasoning that led to the finding being

placed on the judgment. The indictment does not allege a deadly weapon finding, nor does the plea

bargain agreement reference such a finding. The trial court can correct this error by filing a

judgment nunc pro tunc deleting the deadly weapon finding. Habeas relief should not be used as a

substitute for such proceedings.

Based on this Court’s independent review of the entire record, we deny relief.

Filed: December 16, 2015

Do not publish
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors

Marten Transport, Ltd.

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements (Nos. 333-81494, 33-75648 and 333-128168) on Form S-8 of MartenTransport, Ltd. of our reports dated February 24, 2006, with respect tothe consolidated balance sheets of Marten Transport, Ltd. and subsidiary as of December 31,2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2005, and the related financial statementschedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, whichreports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K ofMarten Transport, Ltd.

 
|   | /s/ KPMG LLP |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March 10, 2006

 

----
EXHIBIT 11.1
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       For the Twelve Weeks Ended    For the Twenty-four Weeks Ended
                                                       June 17, 1997     June 11, 1996    June 17, 1997    June 11, 1996
                                                              (in thousands, except           (in thousands, except 
                                                               per share amounts)               per share amounts)
<S>                                                       <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>    
Primary:
Average weighted shares outstanding                        40,990           38,090           40,915           37,843
Net effect of dilutive stock options-based
  on the treasury stock method using
  average market price                                        566            1,321              650            1,321
                                                          -------          -------          -------          -------
Total                                                      41,556           39,410           41,565           39,164
                                                          =======          =======          =======          =======

Net Income                                                $18,546          $ 8,103          $36,750          $21,039
                                                          =======          =======          =======          =======

Per share amount                                          $  0.45          $  0.21          $  0.88          $  0.54
                                                          =======          =======          =======          =======

Fully Diluted:
Average weighted shares outstanding                        40,990           38,090           40,915           37,843
Net effect of dilutive stock options-based
  on the treasury stock method using
  period-end market price, if higher
  than average market price                                   992            1,337              690            1,337
                                                          -------          -------          -------          -------
Total                                                      41,982           39,426           41,605           39,180
                                                          =======          =======          =======          =======

Net Income                                                $18,546          $ 8,103          $36,750          $21,039
                                                          =======          =======          =======          =======

Per share amount                                          $  0.44          $  0.21          $  0.88          $  0.54
                                                          =======          =======          =======          =======
</TABLE>
1
<PAGE>




                                                                     Exhibit 23

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent  public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the  incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K and into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statement File No. 33-12034 and 33-31547,  of our report dated January 21, 2000,
included in Argonaut Group, Inc.'s 1999 Annual Report to Shareholders. It should
be noted that we have not audited any consolidated  financial  statements of the
Company  subsequent  to December  31,  1999 or  performed  any audit  procedures
subsequent to the date of our report.

                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


San Francisco, California
March  21, 2000
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

Section 4 Submission

This is an original submission: This is an amendment:

✔

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that (1) all information entered on this form is

complete and accurate; and (2) any confidentiality claims are true and correct as to that information

for which they have been asserted. Any knowing and willful misinterpretation is subject to criminal

penalty pursuant to 18 USC 1001.

Signature: Official Title:

Director Environmental, Health and Safety

Contact Person:

Shawn P. Wiram

Email Address:

swiram@brenntag.com

Date Signed:

03/03/2015

PART 1 Contact Information

Submission

Information

Submission Type:

TestRules

Form Alias:

TestRules-20140811-10:43:46 EDT

Federal Register Notice:

76 FR 1067

Date Submitted:

03/03/2015

Submitter

Information

Company Name:

Brenntag North America, Inc.

Address:

5083 Pottsville Pike

Reading, PA, 19605

United States

Contact Person:

Shawn P. Wiram

Phone Number:

3174547226

Email Address:

swiram@brenntag.com

Technical Contact

Information

CBI

Yes: 	No: 

✔

Company Name:

Brenntag North America, Inc.

Address:

3111 North Post Road

Indianapolis, IN, 46226

United States

Contact Person:

Mr Shawn P. Wiram

Phone Number:

3174547226

Email Address:

swiram@brenntag.com

PART 2 Letter Of Intent

Not for Submission
SEC4 Submission Page 2

Chemical

Identification

CASRN:

110-44-1

CBI

Yes: 	No: 

✔

Chemical Name:

2,4-Hexadienoic Acid, (2E, 4E)-

Chemical Test Name:

C6

Sponsoring Firms CBI

Yes: 	No: 

✔

Company Name:

Brenntag North America, Inc.

Address:

5083 Pottsville Pike

Reading, PA, 19605

United States

Phone Number:

3174547226

Additional

Information

Document Type:

Amendment to the Study Plan

File Name:

Brenntag- Intent to Test Letter &

Study Plan {06.25.14}.pdf

Attachment Date:

08/11/2014

Document Type:

Amendment to the Study Plan

File Name:

Brenntag- Revised Study Plan

{03.03.15}.pdf

Attachment Date:

03/03/2015

Chemicals

PART 3 Chemical - 110-44-1 : Study Plan

Attached

Document(s)

File Name:

Brenntag- Revised Study Plan

{03.03.15}.pdf

Attachment Date:

03/03/2015

CBI

Yes: 	No: 

✔

Sanitized Document Upload:

N/A

Effects: Endpoints:

Paperwork Reduction Act: The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3501) provides that, when practicable, Federal organizations use electronic forms, electronic filings, and

electronic signatures to conduct official business with the public. EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) (40 CFR part 3), published in the Federal Register on October 13,

2005 (70 FR 59848) (FRL-7977-1)(Ref. 2), provides that any requirement in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to submit a report directly to EPA can be satisfied with an electronic

submission that meets certain conditions once the Agency published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that EPA is prepared to receive certain documents in electronic form. For more

information about CROMERR, go to http://www.epa.gov/cromerr/.

Not for Submission
IV 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 82 

Authorizing the printing of a revised and updated version of the House 

document entitled ‘‘Black Americans in Congress, 1870–1989’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 31, 2022 

Ms. LOFGREN (for herself, Mr. JEFFRIES, and Mr. BUTTERFIELD) submitted 

the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the printing of a revised and updated version 

of the House document entitled ‘‘Black Americans in 

Congress, 1870–1989’’. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED VERSION OF ‘‘BLACK 

4 AMERICANS IN CONGRESS, 1870–1989’’. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—An updated version of House 

6 Document 101–117, entitled ‘‘Black Americans in Con7 gress, 1870–1989’’ (as revised by the Library of Con8 gress), shall be printed as a House document by the Direc9 tor of the Government Publishing Office, with illustrations 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 82 IH 

1 and suitable binding, under the direction of the Committee 

2 on House Administration of the House of Representatives. 

3 (b) NUMBER OF COPIES.—In addition to the usual 

4 number, there shall be printed such number of copies of 

5 the document referred to in subsection (a) as does not ex6 ceed a total production and printing cost of $500,000, of 

7 which— 

8 (1) 80 percent shall be for the use of the Com9 mittee on House Administration of the House of 

10 Representatives; and 

11 (2) 20 percent shall be for the use of the Com12 mittee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Annual Report of ERHC Energy Inc., a
Colorado corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), Peter Ntephe, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:








(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.





/s/   Peter
      NtephePeter
      Ntephe
              Chief
      Operating Officer and Acting Chief Executive Officer
              January 27, 2010
#### Kurtz vs. Kurtz.

In trover, the period of limitations is three years — as held in- *Ford vs. Ford.*

*Appeal from Conway Circuit Court.*

Hon! John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.

Williams & Martin, for appellant.

Jordan, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Fairchild,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, as in *Ford vs. Ford,*decided at the present term, the plea of limitations' of three years was put in to a declaration in trover, which was stricken out by the court, on motion of the plaintiff. Following the decision named, we hold that the court erred, and reverse its judgment, with instructions to overrule the motion to strike out the second plea of the defendant below.
Roy Dexter COOPER, Jr. v. STATE

CR-15-0901

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



Bestnet Communications Corporation
Grand Rapids, Michigan

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8 Registration
Statement as filed on May 29, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and schedules of Bestnet Communications Corporation appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2006

We also consent to the reference to us under the caption "Experts" in the
aforementioned Registration Statement.




/s/  Semple & Cooper, LLP
-----------------------------
     Semple & Cooper, LLP


Phoenix, Arizona

December 8, 2006
Skip Stuart STANLEY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1261

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 05, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Jaime RIVAS & Kenny A. Jimno, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2677

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 26, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.