alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Tanya Marie BROWN, Petitioner

No. 303 WAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 29, 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is REVERSED. *See Commonwealth v. Muniz,*164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017). The Commonwealth’s Application for Relief is DENIED. Petitioner’s Application for Expedited Review is DENIED as moot.
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                    
|View History:                                                     
|                                                                  
|U.S. Natural Gas Citygate Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|U.S. Natural Gas Citygate Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA    
|1980's                                                                                                                            | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | 3.95   | 3.75   | 3.22   | 2.87   | 2.92   | 3.01  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 3.03   | 2.90   | 3.01   | 3.21   | 3.07   | 2.78   | 3.27   | 3.66   | 3.07   | 3.10  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.62   | 5.72   | 4.12   | 5.85   | 6.65   | 8.67   | 8.61   | 8.16   | 9.18   | 6.48  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6.18   | 5.63   | 4.73   | 4.88   | 5.71   | 4.26   | 3.71   | 4.16   | 4.23   | 3.81  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3.43   | 6.02   | 6.89   | 5.29   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 3/29/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 4/30/2024
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Daryl R. Lindemann, as Chief Financial Officer of Morton Industrial Group,Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morton IndustrialGroup, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and have:   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors:   a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
/s/ Daryl R. Lindemann
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Penitas, TX Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Penitas, TX Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 8,489  | 2,977  | 1,206  | NA    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | NA     | NA     | 5,100  | 3,036  | 718    | 0      | 0      | 0      | 18,923 | 4,262 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,371  | 6,871  | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        | 35,216 | 41,335 | 17,329
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### Elizabeth Poissant, Respondent, v Star E.D. Arbouin, Defendant, and Towns Bus Corp. et al., Appellants.

[768 NYS2d 375]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the *615defendants Towne Bus Corp. and John Mazzone appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered May 13, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of an accident involving an automobile and a bus on which she was a passenger. The bus was owned by the defendant Towne Bus Corp. and operated by the defendant John Mazzone (hereinafter the moving defendants), and the automobile was owned and operated by the defendant Star Ella D. Arbouin.

Contrary to the contention of the moving defendants, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]; *City of Rochester v Chiarella,*65 NY2d 92 [1985]; *Barletta v Lewis,*237 AD2d 238 [1997]). Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### Eugene H. HENRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2880

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2017.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; J. Frank Porter, Judge.

Affirmed.
No. 12-318.

#### Alvarez *v.*American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Amendment to the Amended and Restated BancFirst Corporation Employee Ownership



 Exhibit 10.10 
 BANCFIRST CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN 
 2011 AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE 
 ARTICLE I. 
 PURPOSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE 
 1.1 Purpose and Explanation of Amendment. BancFirst
Corporation (“BancFirst”) is the Sponsor of the BancFirst Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the “ESOP”). BancFirst intends to amend the ESOP to provide for eligibility of employees of Okemah National Bank (collectively
“Okemah”). 
 1.2 Effective date of Amendment. This Amendment is effective as indicated herein for the respective provisions.

 1.3 Superseding of inconsistent provisions. This Amendment supersedes the provisions of the ESOP to the extent those provisions are
inconsistent with the provisions of this Amendment. 
 1.4 Construction. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Amendment, any
reference to “Article” or “Section” in this Amendment refers only to Articles and Sections within this Amendment, and is not a reference to the ESOP. 
 ARTICLE II. 
 ELIGIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES 

2.1 Effective date. The provisions of this Article II shall be effective as of October 1, 2011. 

2.2 Participation. Okemah shall be permitted to be a participating employer in the ESOP effective as of October 21, 2011. 

2.3 Eligibility and Vesting Service Credit for Employees of Okemah. With respect to persons who are employed by Okemah as of October 20,
2011, and continue such employment after such date, subject to the ESOP’s break in service provisions, employment service with Okemah shall be counted as employment service under the ESOP for purposes of determining eligibility to participate
and vesting. 
 2.4 Compensation. For purposes of allocating all Employer Contributions under the ESOP, the Compensation of participants
who become eligible to participate in the ESOP pursuant to Section 2.3 above shall only include Compensation paid on or after October 21, 2011. 
 This amendment has been executed this 27th day of October, 2011. 
  

			
	BANCFIRST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Joe T. Shockley, Jr.
	Name:	 	 Joe T. Shockley, Jr
	Title:	 	 EVP, CFO & Secretary
		 	 EMPLOYER
#### STATE EX REL. Ernest JONES v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-1496

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

01/09/2018

ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON

PER CURIAM:

11 Denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As' such, it is subject to the' time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 93Ó.8. Relator’s application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

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 second or successive 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.
#### IN the INTEREST OF: J.N.D., a Minor

199 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

8/4/2017

CP-51-DP-0001267-2015

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
Order entered April 2 3 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00379
- CV NEWSOM, TERRY & NEWS OM, LLP AND STEVEN K . TERRY, Appellant s V. HENRY S. MILLER COMM ERCIAL COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 09
- 01306
- G

ORDER
Befo re the Court is court reporter Brooke Wagner’s April 20, 2020 letter informing the Court that no payment arrangements have bee n made for the reporter’s record

. Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file, no later than May 4, 2020, written verification he has paid or made arrangements to pay for the record. We caution appellants that failure to comply could result in the ap peal being submitted without the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3 (c).
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)      
|View History: Annual                                
|View History: Annual                                
|View History:                                       
|                                                    
|Tennessee Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                    
|                                                    
|Tennessee Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 11    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 19     | 26     | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6,146  | 6,200  | 6,304  | 5,721  | 5,000  | 4,612  | 4,330  | 4,269  | 3,657  | 319   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 221    | 343    | 348    |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Fredrick Calicutt, * From the 161st District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. B-20-0255-CR.

Vs. No. 11-22-00295-CR * July 25, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7292

GEORGE E. CARTER-EL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-98-1003-A)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 29, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George E. Carter-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his action filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Carter-El v. City of Alexandria, No. CA-98-1003-A

(E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Latif McKenzie, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 816]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered January 8, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts) and burglary in the first degree (two counts), and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility, including its evaluation of the witnesses’ inability to make in-court identifications *(see People v Fratello,*92 NY2d 565, 572-573 [1998], *cert denied*526 US 1068 [1999]). Moreover, the fingerprint evidence, standing alone, established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding his far-fetched theory as to how he may have innocently left his fingerprint on a crutch that was used to beat one of the victims *(see People v Steele,*287 AD2d 321, 322 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 688 [2001]; *Taylor v Stainer,*31 F3d 907, 910 [1994]).

Defendant’s claim that the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the witnesses’ lineup identifications *(see*CPL 60.25 [1] [a] [iii]) is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Defendant has not established that counsel’s failure to raise this issue constituted ineffective assistance *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Since counsel made affirmative use of the lineup identifications, coupled with the witnesses’ purported disavowals thereof, defendant has not shown “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for counsel’s conduct *(People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). In any event, were we to find that counsel’s failure to object was not strategic, we would find that the error did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Hobot,*84 NY2d 1021, 1024 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
```

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of MAXXAM Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify that:

         (a) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

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

Dated: November 14, 2003

                                        /S/    CHARLES E. HURWITZ
                                           Charles E. Hurwitz
                                         Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code).
```