alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHARLESTON.

#### State *v.*Frank Kloda

(No. 5172.)

Submitted March 10, 1925.

Decided March 17, 1925.

Syllabi irr Other Oases Followed and Applied.

Section 3 of tlie syllabus in the case of *State*v. *Knosky,*87 W. Va. 558, and section 3 of the syllabus in the case of *State*v. *Cook,*90 *W.*Va. 600, followed and applied.

(Intoxicating Liquor, -33 C. J. § 196.)

(Note : — Parenthetical references by Editors. C. J. — Cyc. Not part of syllabi.)

Error to Circuit Court, Brooke County.

Frank Kloda was convicted of possessing a moonshine still, and he brings error.

*Judgment reversed; verdict set aside; new trial awarded.*

*Chas. J. Schuck*and *Wm. J.*Gompers, for plaintiff in error.

Hatches, Judge:

Frank Kloda was indicted in the circuit court of Brooke county at the February term, 1920, on the charge of operating, maintaining, and having in his possession, a moonshine still m the month of December, 1919. The indictment ivas drawn under section 37 of chapter 108 of the Acts of 1919. He was tried on this indictment, in March, 1924. The evidence of the state was that a raid was made on the defendant’s home a short time prior to the indictment. Kloda at that time lived at a place called Beech Bottom, in a thickly settled community. A public highway ran right past his door. This highway was generally used by the public, as well as the Wheeling Traction Company, in the operation of its street railway. The officers found certain parts of a still underneath Kloda’s house. Kloda was found guilty by the jury and the court fined him $300.00 and sentenced him to the penitentiary for a period of one year.

*476Kloda’s counsel contend that the place at which the still was found, was not a ‘ ‘ desert, secluded, hidden, secret or solitary place” away from the observance of the general public, such as was contemplated by the act of 1919 under which Kloda was indicted. In support of this contention, reference is made to the decisions of this court in the cases of *State*v. *Knosky,*87 W. Va 558, and *State*v. *Cook,*90 W. Va. 600. These cases held that the secluded, etc., place referred to in the statute meant the *locality*in which a still was kept and operated, and not the place itself where a still was found. The attorney general, recognizing the poignancy of this contention, files no brief and offers no argument in support of the judgment herein.

The contention of defendant’s counsel is entirely supported by our former decisions. In consideration of which, we reverse the judgment of the lower court, set aside the verdict of the jury, and award the defendant a new trial.

*Judgment reversed; verdict set aside; new trial awarded.*
Aaron NISWONGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105151

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FIVE.

Filed: February 6, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018

Matthew J. Bell, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Atty. Gen., Daniel N. McPherson, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before James M. Dowd, C.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and Stanley J. Wallach, Sp.J.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM

Aaron Niswonger appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our order. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(2)&(5).
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 22, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00467-CR

MILLENA R. HEBERT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1309261

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant of abandoning or endangering a child and 

assessed punishment at two years’ confinement in the State Jail Division of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, probated for four years. Appellant filed a 

timely notice of appeal. 

On April 26, 2013, appellant’s counsel filed a written motion to withdraw 

the appeal, but the motion did not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure 
2

because appellant had not signed it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). Appellant was 

notified of the defect, but did not correct it. 

On August 1, 2013, this court ordered a hearing to determine why 

appellant’s counsel had not filed a brief in this appeal and whether appellant 

wished to continue her appeal. On August 12, 2013, the trial court conducted the 

hearing, and the record of the hearing was filed in this court on August 13, 2013.

At the hearing, appellant, together with her counsel, confirmed that she had 

discussed the issues with counsel and determined that she no longer wished to 

continue her appeal. Based upon the testimony at the hearing that appellant does 

not want to continue her appeal, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the 

operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Boyce, and Jamison. 

Do Not Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1500 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 10 ) ll-C-3 6 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 8/5/2008 1:51:27

PM Sheet 10 of 343

### A-94-5 2 3T-C - 

### % P. 2

O PACIFI C ENVIRONMEMTA L SERVICES , INC . Centra l Par k Wes t 500 1 Sout h Miam i Boulevar d

P O Bo x 1207 7 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 27709-207 7 (919)941-033 3 FA

X (919 ) 941-023 4 June 25 , 199 6

.*.><-.

%?w . EPAAIRIDOCKC T Mr . Erwi n T . Raphael Manager , Environmenta

l Affairs Navista r Internationa

l P.O . Box 2818 3 Columbus , Ohi o 43228-018 3 Dea r Mr . Raphael : Pe r you r request , I a

msendin g thi s letter

t o remind yo u tha

t th e U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency (EPA ) andPacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc . (PES ) wil l b e visitin g your facilit y o n Jul y 24 , 1996 . Attendin g wil l b e Dr . Madelein e Strum , U S EPA , Dr . Kennet h R . Meardon , PES , andMelani e Proctor , PES . Mr . Da n Scheffel , PES , an d Mr . Emer y Kong , o f Researc h Triangl e Institute , ma y als o attend . A s yo u know , th e U.S . EPA i s i n th e proces s o f developing , under

sectio n 11 2 o

f th e Clea n Ai r Act , air emissio n standard s fo

r th e reinforce dplastic s composite s sourc e category . The purpos e o

f th e visi t i s t o acquire additiona

l informatio n i n suppor

t o f tha t effort . Type s o f informatio n w e are particularl y intereste di n ar e th e sheet molding compoundin g (SMC ) proces s th e level of

emission s fromSMC , andth e contro l o f SM C emissions . Your

facilit y i s particularl y important

for determinin g th e standard s fo r new SM C sources . Mr . Scheffe

l ma y atten dbecaus e i t

i s possibl e tha

t th e U.S . EPA ma

y wis h to conduc t

asourc e tes t

o n th e SM C proces s a

t alate r date . Hi s responsibilit

y i s t o conduc t

apre-tes t site survey . Mr . Kon g ma y atten da s part

o f hi s research o n emissio n reduction technique s i n SMC manufacturing . I f yo u hav e an

y question s regarding thi s letter , pleas e cal l m e a t (919 ) 941-033 3 o r Madelein e Struma

t (919 ) 541-2383 . Yo

u wil l b e receivin g aforma l sit e visi t notificatio n letter fromth e U.S . EPA i n early July . Sincerely , PACIFI C ENVIRONMENTA L SERVICES , INC . Kennet h R . Meardo n Senior Scientis t cc : Melani e Proctor , PE S Madelein e Strum , USEP

A

WASHINGTO N D C • RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK . N C • LO S ANGELES . C A • CINCINNAT I O H
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Income and the Consolidated Statement of Financial
Position and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          59,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  567,409
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,720
<INVENTORY>                                    180,372
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,033,338
<PP&E>                                       3,712,470
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,697,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,239,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,200,010
<BONDS>                                      1,437,617
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          402,922
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           857
<OTHER-SE>                                     817,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,239,054
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,481,068
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,342,240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (17,948)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                17,214
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             119,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (37,679)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,703)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,976)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (2,872)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,848)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)


</TABLE>
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2005-CR-5739, in the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County,

Texas, the Honorable Raymond Angelini presiding. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00165-CR

IN RE Jose A. CORDOVA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 3, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On February 22, 2010, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has

considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled

to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a). 

 PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5532]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8781-8]


Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's 
(OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are 
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund (202) 566-1682, or e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2859781869e879c96dc809b9199b2978293dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ccbba9bfb8a0b9a2a8e2bea5afa78ca9bcade2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a> and please refer to the appropriate EPA 
Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR Number 2291.01; Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector Survey; 
in 40 CFR part 435; was approved 02/18/2009; OMB Number 2040-0279; 
expires 02/29/2012.
    EPA ICR Number 2152.03; Clean Air Interstate Rule to Reduce 
Interstate Transport of Fine Particle Matter and Ozone (Renewal); in 40 
CFR part 96; was approved 02/24/2009; OMB Number 2060-0570; expires 02/
29/2012.
    EPA ICR Number 0801.16; Requirements for Generators, Transporters, 
and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest 
System (Renewal); in 40 CFR parts 262, 263, 264 and 265; was approved 
02/24/2009; OMB Number 2050-0039; expires 02/29/2012.
    EPA ICR Number 2205.02; Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics 
Projects; was approved 03/03/2009; OMB Number 2090-0028; expires 03/31/
2012.
    EPA ICR Number 2350.01; CERCLA 104(e) Letters for Coal Combustion 
Waste at Electric Utilities; was approved 03/05/2009; OMB Number 2050-
0199; expires 09/30/2009.

OMB Comments Filed

    EPA ICR Number 2303.01; NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production 
Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYYY) (Proposed Rule); on 02/24/
2009, OMB filed comment.

    Dated: March 6, 2009.
John Moses,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E9-5532 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50894 USDC No. EP-95-CV-355

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GABRIEL ERNESTO GARCES Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - - March 24, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gabriel Garces (# 63220-080) has applied to this court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. Garces contends that for several reasons, he should not have received a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960. IT IS ORDERED that leave to appeal IFP is DENIED, because Garces’ appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous.No. 95-50894 -2- See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. If this court were to hold that a certificate of appealability (COA) is required in a case such as this, COA would be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5325 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5325

   To direct the Federal Trade Commission to revise the do-not-call 
   telemarketing rules to permit individuals to opt out of receiving 
         telephone calls from certain political organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2006

Mr. Doolittle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Federal Trade Commission to revise the do-not-call 
   telemarketing rules to permit individuals to opt out of receiving 
         telephone calls from certain political organizations.

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

SECTION 1. ``DO-NOT-CALL'' REGISTRY FOR CERTAIN POLITICAL TELEPHONE 
              CALLS.

    (a) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall issue 
regulations to revise the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. 310) to 
prohibit, as an abusive telemarketing act or practice, any politically-
oriented telephone calls to persons who, after such regulations are 
issued, register with the Commission to include their telephone numbers 
on a ``do-not call'' registry established to prohibit such telephone 
calls to such individuals.
    (b) Definition of Politically-Oriented Telephone Calls.--For 
purposes of this section, the term ``politically-oriented telephone 
call'' means any outbound telephone call whose purpose is to promote, 
advertise, campaign for, or solicit donations for or against any 
political candidate or regarding any political issue, or uses any 
political candidate's name.
                                 <all>
```
ex10-1.htm












EXHIBIT 10.1







GEORGETOWN SAVINGS BANK


INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


2011 GOALS


 










 


Organizational Level:  Executive








	
Employee:

	
Robert E. Balletto

	
Incentive Target:

	
18% ($33,867)


	
Title:

	
President and Chief Executive Officer

	
Current Salary:

	
$188,151

















The dollar figures presented in this example are estimates.  Incentive payments will be based on the employee’s base compensation, which includes actual straight-time pay (excludes overtime and prior year’s Incentive Compensation Plan payments), jury duty, holiday, vacation, personal and sick pay for the 2011 calendar year.


 

 



















Minimum Thresholds




In order to receive payment for achievement of the goals listed below, the following thresholds must be met:



	
  

	
1.

	
CAMELS ratings must remain at one of the two highest ratings at all times during the Plan Year.  This will be measured by the OTS.








	
  

	
2.

	
Asset Quality must remain at a level of “Satisfactory” or better at all times during the Plan Year.  This will be measured by both internal audit results and OTS rating.












Tier 1: Bank-wide Performance












GOAL: #1: Profitability – Achieve ROA







 Annual Payout Percentage: 60% = $20,320








	
 


Goals

	
 


Payout


	
95% of budget

	
$  6,773


	
At budget

	
$13,547


	
106% of budget

	
$20,320


	
Stretch Goal

	  
	
Every .05% over 106% of budget

	
$  6,773






















GOAL: #2: Profitability – Achieve Efficiency Ratio







 Annual Payout Percentage: 40% = $13,547








	
 


Goals

	
 


Payout


	
102% of budget

	
$  4,516


	
At budget

	
$  9,031


	
97% of budget

	
$13,547


	
Stretch Goal

	  
	
Every 2% under 97% of budget

	
$  4,516

















 


 




  





  











  






 




 







Tier 2: Team Performance







Goals:   None







 












Tier 3: Individual Performance








Goals:   None
























Minimum Level of Expectations


To be eligible for this Incentive Compensation Plan the employee must meet the following:



	
  

	
·

	
Performing at a satisfactory level or above,








	
  

	
·

	
Not on written warning, and








	
  

	
·

	
Actively employed at the time of the incentive payment.












Clawback Provision


The Bank shall have the right to recoup or “clawback” awards paid under this Plan if the Compensation Committee concludes that such awards were based on information that was later found to be materially incorrect, including awards that were determined, in whole or part, on financial statement information that is subsequently restated.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00038-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.G., a Child

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-02864

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of termination is 

affirmed. 

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant Mother because she is indigent. 

SIGNED July 8, 2015.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Amendment to the 2006 Outside Director Restricted Stock Award Plan



 Exhibit 10.25 
 AMENDMENT TO THE 
 HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. 
 2006 OUTSIDE DIRECTOR RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Health Management Associates, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted and maintains that certain 2006 Outside Director Restricted Stock Award Plan (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, in connection with the recapitalization of the Company which took place in March 2007 and pursuant to Section 11 of the Plan,
the number of shares under the Annual Grant provisions set forth in Section 5(b) of the Plan was previously increased from 3,500 to 12,000; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to increase the number of shares subject to the Annual Grant provision from 12,000 to 20,000, effective January 1, 2010; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2010, as follows: 
 1. Section 5(b) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to provide as follows: 
 “(b) Annual Grants. Commencing January 1, 2010, each person who is an Outside Director on January 1st
of each year will automatically be granted a Restricted Stock Award with respect to 20,000 shares of Common Stock, and the Grant Date with respect to each such Restricted Stock Award will be the date on which the award is granted. If on
January 1 of any year there is not a sufficient number of shares of Common Stock necessary for all Outside Directors to receive a Restricted Stock Award pursuant to this Section 5(b), no grants shall be made for such year under the
Plan.” 
 2. Except as amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

 This Amendment was authorized, approved and adopted in accordance with the terms of the Plan on December 1, 2009.

  

	
	 /s/ Timothy R. Parry

	 Timothy R. Parry, Corporate Secretary
STATE v. Cory Dion BENNETT

406PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 11, 2019

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheboro, for Bennett, Cory Dion.

Brent Kiziah, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality.

David Weiss, Attorney at Law, for Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates.

Elizabeth Hambourger, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates.

Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 11th of July 2019 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of July 2019."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 28th day of August 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.