alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2021

NO. 03-21-00342-CV

R. M., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the de novo decree of termination signed by the trial court on July 6, 

2021. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the trial court’s decree. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s de novo 

decree terminating parental rights. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no 

adjudication of costs is made.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Joseph HEWITT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50301

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed July 3, 2017

Stacey H. Sullivan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Benjamin P. Lechman, Esquire, Attorney, Lechman *&*Lechman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kevin Joseph Hewitt appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 32-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (v)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hewitt contends that the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct at sentencing by misrepresenting witnesses’ statements and by urging the court to punish Hewitt for exercising his constitutional rights. Because Hewitt failed to raise these allegations of misconduct in the district court, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Flores,*802 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2015). Even assuming, without deciding, that the prosecutor’s statements at sentencing constituted misconduct, Hewitt has not shown that the statements affected his substantial rights. *See id.*at 1037. To the contrary, the record reflects that the district court understood correctly that only one of the illegal aliens was able to identify Hewitt at all and that the court considered only permissible factors when choosing the sentence.

Hewitt also contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Hewitt’s contention, the record reflects that the district court properly concluded that Hewitt failed to demonstrate that he was substantially less culpable than the average partic*927ipant based on information contained in the presentence report, to which Hewitt did not object. Moreover, we are satisfied that the district court’s stated rationale for rejecting Hewitt’s request for a reduction remains adequate under Amendment 794, which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). In light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Hewitt failed to prove that he was entitled to the adjustment. *See United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6341 

To delay the amendments to rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2016 

Mr. POE of Texas (for himself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To delay the amendments to rule 41 of the Federal Rules 

of Criminal Procedure. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Review the Rule Act 

5 of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the order en8 tered by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 

9 28, 2016— 


lotter on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6341 IH

1 (1) effective on the date of enactment of this 

2 Act, rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce3 dure is amended to read as it read on November 17, 

4 2016; and 

5 (2) the proposed amendments to rule 41 of the 

6 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure set forth in 

7 such order shall take effect on July 1, 2017. 

8 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Notwithstanding the amend9 ment made by subsection (a)(1), for any warrant issued 

10 under rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 

11 during the period beginning on December 1, 2016, and 

12 ending on the date of enactment of this Act, such rule 

13 41, as was in effect on the date on which the warrant 

14 was issued, shall apply with respect to the warrant. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 49 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 49

 Providing for certain corrections to be made in the enrollment of the 
   bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural 
                               programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 27 (legislative day, March 26), 1996

  Mr. Lugar submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for certain corrections to be made in the enrollment of the 
   bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural 
                               programs.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the enrollment of 
the bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural 
programs, shall make the following corrections:
    In section 215--
            (1) in paragraph (1), insert ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (2), strike ``; and'' at the end and 
        insert a period; and
            (3) strike paragraph (3).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.1
 

JITNEY-JUNGLE STORES OF AMERICA, INC.




October 16, 1996



Mr. Michael E. Julian
P. O. Box 1289
Norfolk, VA  23501-1289

Dear Mike:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm our agreement  regarding  your fees for
certain consulting services provided by you to Jitney-Jungle  Stores of America,
Inc., during the past six months. These services have included (1) advice on the
development of a Frequent Shoppers Card marketing  program;  (2) advice on labor
scheduling and  productivity  improvement;  (3) a market  analysis and expansion
plan for our Memphis  market  area;  (4) advice on the produce  cross dock;  (5)
development of a discount store strategy; and (6) general strategic planning. We
appreciate  the extensive  time you devoted to these  projects,  including  your
travel,  site visits and meetings with  management.  For your services,  we have
agreed to pay you a fee of $170,000. Enclosed you will find our check in payment
of this amount.

Please  acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing and receipt of this fee by
executing and returning a copy of this letter.


                                           Sincerely,

                                           JITNEY-JUNGLE STORES OF AMERICA, INC.

                                           By: /s/ Roger P. Friou
                                           ----------------------
                                           Roger P. Friou
                                           President


Agreed and Acknowledged:

/s/ Michael E. Julian
---------------------
Michael E. Julian
**ANNUAL
      STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**





**SACO
      I Trust 2006-10**





**2006**











The
      undersigned, an authorized officer of LaSalle Bank National Association
      (“LBNA”), hereby certifies as follows:





1.  I
      have
      made, or caused to be made under my supervision, a review of the master
      servicing activities of LBNA during the preceding calendar year ending 2006,
      and
      its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated October 1,
      2006
      (the “Agreement”) for SACO I Trust, Series 2006-10.





2.  To
      the
      best of my knowledge, based on such review, LBNA has, without exception,
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
      throughout the preceding calendar year ending 2006.





In
      witness whereof, I the undersigned have executed this Annual Statement of
      Compliance on this 7 th day of
      March, 2007.








LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Master Servicer







By:
      /s/ Andrew Leszczynski




Name:
      Andrew Leszczynski


Title:
      First Vice President
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 24, 2017

No. 04-17-00031-CV

IN RE Kevin Doty and Elizabeth DOTY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On January 19, 2017, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency 

motion for temporary relief. This court is of the opinion that a serious question concerning the 

mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The 

respondent and the real parties in interest may file a response to the petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court no later than February 8, 2017. Any such response must conform to 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4. 

Relator’s request for emergency relief is GRANTED. All proceedings in the underlying

case are stayed pending final resolution of the petition filed in this court.

It is so ORDERED on January 24, 2017.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

 Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. CC-15-100, styled Richard Davidson v. Kevin Doty, pending in the 229th 

Judicial District Court, Jim Hogg County, Texas, the Honorable Ana Lisa Garza presiding.
For The Nine Months Ended
                                                            April 30
                                                       2002          2001
                                                    -----------    -----------


Shares outstanding                                    7,939,899      6,630,091
                                                     ----------     ----------
Weighted average shares outstanding                   7,452,337      6,298,590
Stock Options                                         2,779,766      1,412,675
Warrants                                                     --      1,797,500
                                                     ----------     ----------
       Total weighted average shares outstanding     10,232,103      9,508,765
                                                     ==========     ==========

Net income (loss)                                  $ (1,393,866)   $(1,484,416)
                                                     ==========     ==========
Basic Net Earnings (Loss) per share                $      (0.19)   $     (0.24)
                                                     ==========     ==========
Diluted Net Earnings (Loss) per share              $      (0.19)   $     (0.24)
                                                     ==========     ==========
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevryn GAINES-DUKES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-1211

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted October 31, 2017

Decided November 1, 2017

Tiffany J. McCormick, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevryn Gaines-Dukes, Pro Se

Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

ORDER

Kevryn Gaines-Dukes transported a 16-year-old girl from Indianapolis to Cincinnati and then to Nashville, and in those cities prostituted her. Police arrested Gaines-Dukes as he was transporting the girl. He pleaded guilty to sex trafficking a minor. 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). His plea agreement included a waiver of his right to *532appeal his conviction “on any ground,” and also a waiver of his right to appeal his sentence if the judge sentenced him within or below the guidelines range. The district court sentenced him to 156 months’ imprisonment, below the guidelines range of 168 to 210 months (based on his offense level of 33 and criminal history category of III), and 15 years’ supervised release. Gaines-Dukes filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed appellate counsel has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We invited Gaines-Dukes to respond to counsel’s motion, but he has not replied. See Cir. R. 51(b). Counsel’s supporting brief explains the nature of the case and addresses issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve, and because the analysis appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that counsel discusses. See *United States v. Bey,*748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); *United States v. Wagner,*103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).

Counsel represents that Gaines-Dukes does not wish to challenge his guilty plea, and thus the lawyer appropriately does not discuss the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of Gaines-Dukes’s plea colloquy. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; *United States v. Konczak,*683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); *United States v. Knox,*287 F.3d 667, 670-71 (7th Cir. 2002). It follows, says counsel, that Gaines-Dukes’s appeal waiver makes this appeal frivolous. We agree with counsel; because an appeal waiver stands or falls with the guilty plea, *United States v. Zitt,*714 F.3d 511, 515 (7th Cir. 2013); *United States v. Sakellarion,*649 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2011), Gaines-Dukes’s waiver must be enforced. Moreover, counsel has identified no exception that would apply here, see *United States v. Adkins,*743 F.3d 176, 192-93 (7th Cir. 2014). Indeed, no element of Gaines-Dukes’s sentence exceeds a statutory maximum, see 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(2), and the judge did not rely on any unconstitutional factor when imposing Gaines-Dukes’s sentence.

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                         For the Nine Months Ended
                                                       April 30
                                                         2000                1999
                                                   ----------------------------------

<S>                                                     <C>                 <C>
 Shares outstanding                                     6,416,939           4,392,242
                                                       ----------         -----------

 Weighted average shares outstanding                    4,821,667           4,056,349
 Stock Options                                          1,416,559           1,415,000
 Warrants                                               1,798,125           1,798,125
                                                       ----------         -----------
       Total weighted average shares outstanding        8,036,352           7,269,474
                                                       ==========         ===========

 Net Income (Loss)                                     $ (474,989)          $ 490,459
                                                       ===========          =========

 Basic Net Earnings (Loss) per share                   $    (0.10)          $    0.12
                                                       ===========         ==========

 Diluted Net Earnings (Loss) per share                 $    (0.06)          $    0.07
                                                       ===========          =========

</TABLE>

<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05198]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--PXI Systems Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 24, 2022, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. 
(``PXI Systems'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Houston, TX, has withdrawn as 
a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
16, 2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 5, 2021 (86 FR 55003).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05198 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9



                               FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO
                       APPENDIX A TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                        BETWEEN STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.
                                       AND
                                MICHAEL K. CRANE

                  BASE SALARY, BONUS COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

1.       Effective February 1, 2002, Employee's title(s) shall be Senior Vice
         President and President - Central Division, Employee's Base Salary
         shall be $250,000, and Employee's principal work location shall be the
         New Orleans, Louisiana metropolitan area.

2.       For Fiscal Year 2002 ("FY 2002"), the Employee shall be eligible to
         receive a Bonus of up to $243,350.

         [Items 2(a) through (c) and 3 are unaffected by this Supplement.]


                                Agreed to and accepted:

                                STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.


Date: April __, 2002            By:
                                   ---------------------------------------
                                          James W. McFarland
                                    Compensation Committee Chairman


                                EMPLOYEE:


Date: April __, 2002
                                ------------------------------------------
                                            Michael K. Crane
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
EDELLA JOHNSON (A/K/A EDELLA ROBINSON, A/K/A EDELLA ROBINSON JOHNSON), ERIC JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED FORMER AND CURRENT HOMEOWNERS IN PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioners

v.
PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG, LLP, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 335 WAL 2014
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 13th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioners, is: (1) Does Act 6, §502 provide a remedy, as the explicit language of the statute establishes, against any statutorily defined “person” collecting statutorily prohibited fees on behalf of residential mortgage lenders?
The Application to File Supplement to Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Dan Finch
                                 ----------------------
                                 Dan Finch
                                 Chief Executive Officer

May 19, 2008

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Sudeep Bhargava
                                 ----------------------
                                 Sudeep Bhargava
                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer

May 19, 2008
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.2 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 GA Financial, Inc.

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of GA Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James V. Dionise, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     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 results of operations
          of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

    /s/ James V. Dionise
    --------------------
    James V. Dionise
    Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
    November 14, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by ss. 906 has been
provided to GA Financial, Inc. and will be retained by GA Financial, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.