alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**I, James C. Day, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Noble Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: November 9, 2005   /s/ JAMES C. DAY   James C. Day  Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Noble Corporation
No. 01-15-00341- CV

IN THE

F IRST COURT OF APPEALS

Houston, Texas

ELIZABETH A. LOUSTEAU AND BRETT CLANTON

Defendant s/Appellants,

v.

JAIME L. NORIEGA AND SONIA A. NORIEGA

Plaintiff s/ Appellee s.

Appeal from the 151st Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas No. 2013-35448

APPELLANTS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE RULING ON NOTICE OF DISMISSAL AND
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Marianne G. Robak, TBA 24048508 Email: mgrobak@law-crg.com 1770 St. James Place, Suite 150 C ERSONSKY
, R OSEN & G ARCIA
, P.C. Houston, Texas 77056 Tel: (713) 600-8500; FAX (713) 600-8585 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS, ELIZABETH A. LOUSTEAU AND BRETT CLANTON

. ACCEPTED 01-15-00341-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/25/2015 1:56:56 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKAppellants are awaiting rulings on two matters: (1) The Court's Notice of Intent to

Dismiss; and (2) Appellants' Motion to Consolidate. The Motion to Consolidate was filed on July

10, 2015 and was not opposed. Appellants' Response to the Court' Notice of Intent to D ismiss

was filed on July 27, 2015. No response in opposition to Appellants' Response was filed by

Appellees. The Court has made no rulings on either motion. Appellants need rulings on these

motions before they can file their brief because they need guidanc e from the Court on how to

style the briefs if consolidated, how to reference the clerk's records if consolidated , and whether

to include arguments relating to cause number 01

- 15

- 00254

- CV in the appeal to be filed in this

matter. The due date for t he appea l in both this case and cause number 01

- 15

- 0254

- CV are due

August 27, 2015. If this Motion is not granted, Appellants will need to file an additional

extension, as the briefs should not be filed without a ruling on these two material matters.

Therefore, Ap pellants respectfully request that the rulings on both motions be expedited and

ruled on before the August 27, 2015 deadline for filing the Appellants' Brief.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marianne G. Robak Marianne G. Robak, TBA N o. 24048508

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to all counsel of record on this 2 5 nd day of August , 201 5, as follows:

Via electronic filing manager Sarahjane “SJ” Davidson Swanson Swanson Law Firm, PLLC 310 Main, Ste. 201 Houston, TX 77056

/s/ Marianne G. Robak Marianne G. Robak
EXHIBIT 23-a

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated April 14, 2003, accompanying the financial
statements and schedules included in the Annual Report of Black Warrior Wireline
Corp. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
Black Warrior Wireline Corp. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-57390, effective March
22, 2001, File No. 333-57392, effective March 22, 2001, and File No. 333-57396,
effective March 22, 2001).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

Houston, Texas
April 14, 2003
#### Exchange National Bank of Tampa, a Florida Corporation, as Administrator of the Estate of Adrian C. Honore, Deceased, et al., *Appellants,*v. Flynn-Harris-Bullard Company, a Corporation, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed April 16, 1928.

*Knight, Thompson Turner*and *Jamies F. Glen,*for Appellants ;

*Hampton & Greene,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The decrees herein are affirmed on the authority of Exchange National Bank of Tampa, as Administrator, *et al.,*v. Clark-Ray-Johnson Company, this day decided.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5457 

To supersede certain judicial orders interfering with the implementation of 

amendments to section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2006 

Mr. DOOLITTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To supersede certain judicial orders interfering with the implementation of amendments to section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUPERSEDING JUDICIAL ORDERS PRECEDING 

4 REVISION OF PROCEDURES FOR REMOVAL 

5 OF ALIENS. 

6 The provisions of section 235 of the Immigration and 

7 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225) (as in effect on the date 

8 of the enactment of this Act) supersede any court order 

9 issued prior to the effective date specified in section 

10 309(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5457 IH

1 Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note), if the 

2 court order affects the ability of the Secretary of Home3 land Security to carry out expedited removal of inadmis4 sible arriving aliens in accordance with such section 235. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
H. R. 4811

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and six 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 215 West 

Industrial Park Road in Harrison, Arkansas, as the ‘‘John Paul Hammerschmidt 

Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

215 West Industrial Park Road in Harrison, Arkansas, shall be 

known and designated as the ‘‘John Paul Hammerschmidt Post 

Office Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John Paul 

Hammerschmidt Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Lease Equity Appreciation Fund
I, L.P. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Crit S. DeMent, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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.

May 16, 2006                                 /s/ Crit S. DeMent
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Crit S. DeMent
                                             Chief Executive Officer
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Timothy PORTELL III, Appellant.

No. ED 105148

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: February 13, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Christian E. Lehmberg, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

For Respondent: JOSHUA D. HAWLEY, Karen L. Kramer, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Timothy Portell III ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court's judgment following a bench trial convicting him of assault in the second degree. Appellant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*931The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT 32.2

TELVUE CORPORATION

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


In connection with the Annual Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John
Fell, Treasurer and Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company.



Date:  11/20/08                     /s/John Fell
                                    -------------------
                                    John Fell
                                    Treasurer-Controller
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40732 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GLEN ALLEN DERICKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-64-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - January 7, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Glen Allen Derickson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, conditioned on his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana. He argues that he did not consent to the search of his vehicle and that the investigating officer did not have probable cause to support his warrantless search of the vehicle. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and we hold that Derickson’s uncontested admission to the investigatingNo. 97-40732 -2- officer that his van contained marijuana provided the probable cause to uphold the warrantless search of Derickson’s van. See United States v. De Los Santos , 810 F.2d 1326, 1336-37 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
NO. 07-03-0511-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	AUGUST 31, 2005

	______________________________

	GUSTAVO PENA, JR., APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

	NO. 6284; HONORABLE STEVEN R. EMMERT, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Gustavo Pena, Jr. appeals the adjudication of his guilt for the offense of possession of a controlled substance.  In two issues, he contends the evidence is insufficient to establish his guilt for the original charge and the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements at the adjudication hearing.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

	Appellant originally pled guilty to the charge of possessing a controlled substance.  The trial court found the evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt but deferred adjudication of guilt and placed him on community supervision for eight years.  Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt.  The trial court granted the motion, adjudicated appellant guilty and assessed punishment of five years in prison.

	To the extent that appellant now questions the evidence underlying the evidence of his guilt for the original charge, established law bars us from considering the matter.  According to Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-662 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), one cannot appeal issues related to the original plea hearing after his guilt has been adjudicated.  Id. at 662; Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).

	Nor can one appeal the decision to adjudicate guilt.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004).  Additionally, the scope of that rule encompasses error arising “in the adjudication of guilt process.”  Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999).  Since the admissibility of the evidence considered by the trial court at the adjudication hearing is a matter arising in that process, we have no jurisdiction to consider it.

	Having no jurisdiction over either issue, we must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1997, no pet.).

							James T. Campbell

							       Justice

Do not publish.
exv10w28







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.28




FIRST AMENDMENT TO




SENIOR OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SENIOR OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this
“Amendment”) is entered into effective the
1st day of March, 2011 by and between The GEO
Group, Inc., a Florida Corporation, (the “Company”) and Brian Evans (the “Employee”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee (collectively the “Parties”) have previously entered
into a Senior Officer Employment Agreement effective as of August 3, 2009
(the “Employment Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein to employ the
Employee in accordance with the provisions herein.



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and
for other valuable consideration the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Parties hereby agree as follows:



     1. Section 4.A. of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:




“Annual
Base Salary. The Employee shall be paid an annual base salary of
$500,000 (as such
may be amended from time to time, the “Annual Base Salary”). The Company may increase the
Annual Base Salary paid to the Employee in an amount to be determined by the Chief Executive
Officer of the Company. The Annual Base Salary shall be payable at such regular times and
intervals as the Company customarily pays its employees from time to time.”



     2. Section 7.A.(iv) of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:




“Termination Stock Options and Restricted Stock. All of the outstanding unvested stock
options and restricted stock granted to the Employee prior to termination will fully vest
immediately upon termination, provided however, that any restricted stock that is still
subject to performance based vesting at the time of such termination shall only vest when
and to the extent the Compensation Committee of the Board certifies that the performance
goals are actually met.”



     Except as otherwise specifically amended herein, the terms and provisions of the Employment
Agreement remain in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts.



[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]






 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment under seal
as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE GEO GROUP, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
George C. Zoley 	 
	 	 	Name:  	George C. Zoley 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	EMPLOYEE

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Brian Evans  	 
	 	 	Name:  	Brian Evans 	 
	 	 	 	 



2
CHARLESTON.

#### William Berisford *v.*Sumner Lynch *et als.*

(C. C. 321.)

Submitted January 20, 1925.

Decided February 3, 1925.

Cancellation of *Instruments*— Bill *to Cancel Overdue Notes, Because of Fraud in Transaction in Which They Were*■ *Given,. Held Demurrable.*

A "bill filed for the purpose of cancelling overdue notes given in the exchange of personal property on the ground of fraud is. *122demurrable; the plaintiff in such case having a complete and adequate remedy at law.

(Cancellation of Instruments, 9 C. J. § 11.)

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

Case Certified from Circuit Court, Marshall County.

Bill by William Berisford against Sumner Lynch and others. An order was made overruling defendants’ demurrer, .and the case was certified.

*Reversed and remanded.*

*James D. Parriott*and *J. Howard Holt,*for plaintiff.

*Martin Brown,*for defendants.

Litz, Judge:

This case is certified from the action of the circuit court ■overruling a demurrer to the bill, which avers that in June, 1923, the plaintiff, in exchange for a second-hand Buick ••automobile belonging to defendants, sold and delivered to them a Ford car of the value of $400.00 and, to cover the .agreed difference between the two cars, also executed and delivered to the defendants three promissory notes, for $66.66 •each, payable to the order of defendant, Sumner Lynch, and due respectively in August, October and December, 1923, ■on one of which the defendants have instituted suit.

It is further alleged that at the time of the transaction and •as inducement thereto the defendants falsely represented to the plaintiff that the Buick machine was in first class condition and good running order, and also warranted it to be •sound in every respect with the exception of a loose valve; that the car was in fact so■ defective in other respects plaintiff was compelled to expend $112.77 for repairs and to forego the use thereof for nineteen days, at an estimated loss of ■$5.00 per day.

The bill prays that the defendants be restrained from enforcing the collection of the notes and required to surrender ■them for cancellation; and that the plaintiff be decreed judgment upon an accounting between himself and the defendants.

If the plaintiff is entitled to relief he has a complete and *123adequate remedy at law. *Mylius*v. *Massillon Engine & Thresher Co.,*70 W. Va. 576. The notes sought to be can-celled, being overdue, have lost their negotiability. “Equity refuses to cancel non-negotiable instruments, or negotiable' instruments overdue, for fraud, because the obligor, in such cases, has a full, adequate and complete defense at law, and stands in no danger.” *Big Huff Goal Co.*v. *Thomas,*76 W. Va. 161.

The bill being plainly without equity, the demhrrrer should have been sustained, and it will be so certified.

*jReversed and remanded.*
No. 09-9792.

#### Frank Phillips, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1086, 130 S. Ct. 2138,

176 L. Ed. 2d 755,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3162.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 361 Fed. Appx. 679.
No. 09-9805.

#### Broderick D. Hardeman, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1099, 130 S. Ct. 2390,

176 L. Ed. 2d 781,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3581.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied.

Same case below, 67 M.J. 372.