alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas Chauncey WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-60002 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 16, 2018

John Arthur Meynardie, Esq., Gaines H. Cleveland, Shundral Hobson Cole, Assistant U.S.. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulf-port, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Maura Delaney McLaughlin, McLaughlin Law Firm, Hattiesburg, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

*296PER CURIAM: *

Douglas Chauncey Williams pleaded guilty to possession of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Williams waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and sentence on any ground, reserving only the right to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Williams now argues that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to introduce his medical records and failing to object to the criminal history portion of the presentence report.

We generally decline to review ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal. *United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have resolved such claims “only in rare cases where the record allowed us to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.” *United States v. Higdon,*832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). In most instances, a claim qualifies as a “rare case” warranting review only when it was raised and developed in a post-trial motion to the district court. *United States v. Stevens,*487 F.3d 232, 245 (5th Cir. 2007).

Although Williams alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in his notice of appeal, he did so only generally, and his claims were never developed in the district court. Moreover, Williams does not describe in his appellate brief what evidence counsel failed to introduce or explain what objections counsel should have raised. Because this is not one of the rare cases in which the record provides sufficient detail to allow us to determine the merits of Williams’s claims, we decline to consider them on direct appeal without prejudice to Williams’s right to raise his claims on collateral review. *See Isgar,*739 F.3d at 841.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Order entered October 23, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-14-01351-CV

IN RE JASON R. SCHUH, M.D. AND NO RTHSTAR ANESTHESIA, P.A., Relators

Original Proceeding from th e County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-01461-C



### ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus

without prejudice to the filing of a subsequent petition for writ of ma ndamus upon entry of a

written order by the trial court. We DENY relators’ motion for immediate temporary relief. We

ORDER relators to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE
No. 11-10955.

#### Book *v.*Bysiewicz et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin*v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U. S. 1 (1992) *(per curiam).*
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 101

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 7, 1997

Mr. LIVINGSTON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1998, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 106(3) of Public Law 105–46 is further

4 amended by striking ‘‘November 7, 1997’’ and inserting

5 in lieu thereof ‘‘November 9, 1997’’, and each provision

6 amended by sections 122 and 123 of such public law shall

7 be applied as if ‘‘November 9, 1997’’ was substituted for

8 ‘‘October 23, 1997’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1






Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)






In connection with the filing by Millennia, Inc. (the "Company") of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies:




1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: April 20, 2010/s/ Kevin B. HalterKevin B. Halter, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 21, 2014

p0521 

# Order

Clerk May 21, 2014

147178

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF

CHIROPRACTORS a/k/a CHIROPRACTORS

ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN and NICHOLAS

S. GRIFFI THS, D.C.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 147178

COA: 304783

Ingham CC: 09

- 000140

- CZ

BLUE CARE NETWORK OF MICHIGAN, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
aena_ex101.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 


6
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2


December 18, 2017




Hamilton E. James
Chairman of the Board
Costco Wholesale Corp.




RE: Extension of Term


Dear Tony:
As provided for under section 7(b) of the Executive Employment Agreement, effective January 1, 2017, between Costco Wholesale Corp. and me, this letter will confirm an extension of the term through and including December 31, 2018. Please countersign below to indicate acceptance on behalf of the Company.
Very truly yours,
	
	
	/s/ W. CRAIG JELINEK

	W. Craig Jelinek

	President and CEO

	12/18/2017






	
	
	Costco Wholesale Corp.

	/s/ HAMILTON JAMES

	Hamilton E. James

	Chairman of the Board

	12/18/2017






Cc: John Stanton
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                   CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Periodic Report"), I, Charles L. Hall,
Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of Equistar Chemicals,
LP, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or
     78o(d)); and

(2)  the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     Equistar Chemicals, LP.

Date: November 13, 2002                /s/ Charles L. Hall
                                       ---------------------------
                                       Charles L. Hall
                                       Vice President, Controller and
                                       Chief Accounting Officer
                                       (Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

================================================================================

Press Release

Contact:   Mike McShane (713) 462-4239                         [LOGO]
                                                               BJ SERVICES
Release:   Immediately

================================================================================


          BJ SERVICES COMPANY SELLS $355,051,240 OF CONVERTIBLE NOTES


                            CORRECTED ANNOUNCEMENT


Houston, Texas, April 19, 2002 - BJ Services Company (BJS-NYSE, CBOE, PCX). The
amount reflected in our earlier announcement incorrectly indicated gross
proceeds of $335,051,240, from the Company's sale of convertible notes. The
correct amount of gross proceeds to be received by the Company is $355,051,240.

The convertible notes and the shares of BJ Services common stock into which they
are convertible have not yet been registered under the Securities Act of 1933
and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an
applicable exemption from registration requirements.

BJ Services Company is a leading provider of pressure pumping and other oilfield
services to the petroleum industry.

                                   ********

             (NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION TO BENEFICIAL OWNERS)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirely by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         109,352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,841,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                    56,101
<INVENTORY>                                  1,785,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,781,522
<PP&E>                                       1,827,828
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,416,905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,412,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,724,177
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       405,776
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,782,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,412,944
<SALES>                                      6,355,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,373,831
<CGS>                                        3,567,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,567,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,032,733
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                696,081
<INCOME-TAX>                                   279,280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            416,801
<DISCONTINUED>                                (32,674)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   384,127
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
A table is  presented  below to  assist  the  reader in  understanding  the
issuances of the  Registrant's  common stock and the computation of the loss per
share as it is being presented in the Statement of Operations.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                               Shares    Total Shares   Total Months    Financial     Financial    Financial
    Transaction                Issued    Outstanding    Outstanding    Loss/Period    Loss-Y/D   Cumulative Loss
    -----------                ------    ------------   ------------   -----------    ---------  ---------------
<S>                           <C>          <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>         <C>
Shares outstanding
at time of commencement
of development stage
July 31, 1996 - 
Registrant's year end.......   779,940        779,940       11          $      -       $      -    $      -

Common stock issued
at $0.07 cash per share to
affiliates of the Registrant
July, 1997 -
Registrant's year end.......   214,285        994,225       10          $( 1,090)      $( 1,090)   $( 1,090) 

Common stock  issued
at $0.90 cash per share to 
an affiliate of the
Registrant
April 30, 1998 -
Registrant's 3rd Quarter end.  400,000      1,394,225       0           $( 8,150)      $(16,278)   $(17,368)
                                                                        --------       --------    --------  

Loss per share utilizing 994,225 shares of common stock                 $  (0.01)      $  (0.02)   $  (0.02)
                                                                        ========       ========    ========
</TABLE>

     Registrant's  recent  issuance  of 400,000  shares of common  stock did not
occur until the end of the third  quarter  being  reported  upon by this Report.
Reference is made to  Registrant's  audited  financial  statements  for the year
ended July 31, 1997,  where in its footnotes is stated that "using the number of
common shares outstanding as of Registrant's year end (July 31, 1997) provides a
more comparable and conservative  approach to the per share  computation for the
current and in future periods."
No. 11-9816.

#### Tippens *v.*Virginia.

Sup. .Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
Amendment No. 1 to
                        Master Lease dated April 2, 1999
                                     Between
                       PLM International, Inc. ("Lessee")
                                       And
                 Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. ("Lessor")


Lessor and Lessee hereby agree to amend the Lease as follows:

     1.  Paragraph 6 is amended by adding the following to the end thereof:  For
Administrative convenience and as an accommodation to Lessee, Lessor agrees that
Lessee may be named as owner on certificate of titles for the Equipment.

     2.  Paragraph  9 is  amended by adding the  following  to the end  thereof:
Notwithstanding  anything to the contrary in this  paragraph 9, Lessee may, from
time to time, sublet the Equipment without the prior consent of Lessor, provided
however that Lessee shall remain fully  obligated to Lessor under this Lease and
the term of the sublease shall not extend beyond the term of the Lease.

     3. The last  sentence of paragraph 12 is amended to read:  Any insurance or
condemnation  proceeds  received shall be credited to Lessee's  obligation under
this paragraph and Lessee shall be entitled to any surplus.

     4.  Except as modified herein, the terms and conditions of the Lease remain
the same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  Lessor and Lessee have executed this Amendment this 2nd day
of April, 1999.

Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc.             PLM International, Inc.



By:  /s/ Sheryl L. Parranto                     By:  /s/ J. Michael Allgood
Its: Officer                                    Its: V.P. and CFO




<PAGE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

T.J., ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-4403 

 ) 

C.W.P. III, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed March 16, 2016. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Tracy Sheehan, 

Judge. 

Angela Lynn Leiner of The Law Office of 

Angela L. Leiner, P.A., St. Petersburg, for 

Appellant. 

Joseph R. Fritz of Joseph R. Fritz, P.A., 

Tampa, for Appellee. 

VILLANTI, Chief Judge. 

 T.J. (the Mother) appeals the final judgment of paternity and time-sharing 

entered in this litigation brought by C.W.P. III (the Father). The Mother elected not to 

provide this court with a complete transcript of the two-day evidentiary hearing, so we 

are unable to address the majority of the issues she raises in this appeal. Despite this 
- 2 -

deficiency, however, she is correct that the written final judgment does not accurately 

reflect the trial court's oral ruling as to the Mother's time-sharing. Therefore, on this 

single point, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment. 

 The transcript in the record is limited to the trial court's oral ruling made at 

the conclusion of the second day of the evidentiary hearing. In its oral ruling, the trial 

court announced that the Mother would have time-sharing with the parties' daughter 

every other weekend from Friday when school let out until Monday morning. This would 

presumably allow the Mother to pick up the child from school on Friday afternoon and 

would give her three overnights every other week. However, the written final judgment 

gives the Mother time-sharing every other weekend from Friday at 7 p.m. until Sunday 

at 7 p.m. Hence, the written judgment clearly differs from the trial court's oral ruling, not 

only in the time for the exchange of the child, but also in the number of overnights the 

Mother will have with the child. 

 This court has previously held that "[r]eversal is required where the final 

judgment is inconsistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement." Brewer v. Brewer, 

3 So. 3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649, 

650-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 

1991) (reversing the portion of the final judgment concerning visitation and remanding 

with directions to conform the written judgment to the court's oral pronouncement); cf. 

Meyer v. Meyer, 525 So. 2d 462, 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (noting that the entry of a 

written judgment that is materially different from the court's oral pronouncement is a 

substantive error requiring correction). We must therefore reverse the portion of the 

final judgment concerning the Mother's weekend time-sharing and remand for the trial 
- 3 -

court to enter an amended final judgment that is consistent with its oral ruling. In all 

other respects, we affirm. 

 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. 

WALLACE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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 The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 25, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James D.
Weddle, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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
Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ James D. WeddleChief Executive OfficerThe Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.May 6, 2011
IA

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 120

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c)

of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 4, 1998

Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Mr. GILMAN, and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey)

introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained

in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect

to Vietnam.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Congress does not approve the extension of the au4 thority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of

5 1974 recommended by the President to Congress on June

6 3, 1998, with respect to Vietnam.

Æ
#### COM. v. A.G.

3547 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/08/2017

CP-48-CR-0002181-2014 (Northamp-n)

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 302 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 302

   To authorize the production of records by the Committee on Indian 
                                Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 26, 1996

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To authorize the production of records by the Committee on Indian 
                                Affairs.

Whereas the United States Department of Justice and counsel for the plaintiff-
        relators and defendant in the case of United States of America ex rel. 
        William I. Koch, et al. v. Koch Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 91-
        CV-763-B, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern 
        District of Oklahoma, have requested that the Committee on Indian 
        Affairs provide them with copies of records of the former Special 
        Committee on Investigations of the Committee on Indian Affairs for use 
        in connection with the pending civil action;
Whereas by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; 
        and
Whereas when it appears that documents, papers, and records under the control or 
        in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of 
        justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote the ends of 
        justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to provide 
to the United States Department of Justice, counsel for the plaintiff-
relators and defendant in United States of America ex rel. William I. 
Koch, et al. v. Koch Industries, Inc., et al., and other requesting 
individuals and entities, copies of records of the Special Committee on 
Investigations for use in connection with pending legal proceedings, 
except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
                                 <all>
```