alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1.   | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Freedom Environmental Services, Inc. ; |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining 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 Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have: |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

Friday, March 20, 2009,  9:30 a.m. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, Washington, DC 20425. 

## Briefing Agenda 

*Topic:*                     An Examination of Civil Rights Issues with Respect to the Mortgage Crisis.                 

I. Introductory Remarks by Chairman 

II. Speakers' Presentations. 

III. Questions by Commissioners and Staff Director. 

IV. Adjourn Briefing. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8582. TDD: (202) 376-8116. 

Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105. TDD: (202) 376-8116. 

Dated: March 10, 2009. 

David Blackwood, 

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. E9-5510 Filed 3-10-09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Reggie OLIPHANT, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. SD 35397

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Filed: October 15, 2018

Appellant's Attorney: Casey A. Taylor, of Columbia, Missouri.

Respondent's Attorneys: Joshua Hawley, Attorney General, and Julia E. Neidhardt, Assistant Attorney General, of Jefferson City, Missouri.

WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., P.J.

Reggie Oliphant ("Oliphant"), appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.0351 motion to set aside his convictions for two counts of distribution, delivery, manufacture, or production of a controlled substance; and one count of keeping or maintaining a public nuisance. Because the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the motion court conducted the required ***Moore***2 abandonment inquiry following appointed counsel's untimely amended motion, we reverse and remand.

**Motion Court Failed to Conduct *Moore* Abandonment Inquiry**

The record reflects (and both parties agree) that appointed counsel filed an untimely amended motion. An untimely amended motion raises the presumption of abandonment, which the motion court *must* resolve after inquiry. ***Moore v. State*** , 458 S.W.3d 822, 825 (Mo. banc 2015). "The result of the inquiry into abandonment determines which motion-the initial motion or the amended motion-the court should adjudicate." ***Id.*** at 826.

As the State correctly indicates, "there is an insufficient record to establish that the motion court made an inquiry in to whether [Oliphant] was abandoned[.]"

We reverse and remand with directions that the motion court conduct a ***Moore*** abandonment inquiry, and for such further proceedings as appropriate pursuant to Rule 24.035.

DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. - CONCURS

MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. - CONCURS

1

All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2018).

2

***Moore v. State*** , 458 S.W.3d 822, 825 (Mo. banc 2015).
Eleventh Amendment to the 2002 Amended Servicing Agreement



 Exhibit 10.38 
  
 ELEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 AMENDED SERVICING AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) is
made this 17th day of November, 2009 to that certain 2002 Amended Servicing Agreement (“Agreement”) by and between BOSTON SERVICE COMPANY, INC. (“BSC”) and AUTO LENDERS LIQUIDATION CENTER,
INC. (“Auto Lenders”). 
  
 BACKGROUND 

  
 BSC and Auto Lenders wish to amend the Amended
Servicing Agreement by changing language in the Second Amendment to the 2002 Servicing Agreement and inserting additional language to Paragraph 4 – Delivery & Reconditioning of Vehicles and by inserting the agreed upon Servicing Fee
for calendar year 2012 within Paragraph 9. 
  
 Change to Fourth
Amendment to the Amended Servicing Agreement 
  
 Amendment to Paragraph 4 – Delivery and Reconditioning of Vehicles 
  
 The paragraph will limit the amount of reimbursed expense by BSC to Auto Lenders covering the period of 01/01/10 through 12/31/10 to $550,000
per month. 
  
 Amendment to
Paragraph 9 – Consideration 
  
 This
Paragraph shall be amended as it pertains to the Guarantee Fees found under Paragraph B (iv) in which the agreed upon Guarantee Fee for the calendar year 2012 will appear as follows: 
  
 The Guarantee Fee will be $250,000 per month for the period 01/01/12 through 12/31/12. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BSC and Auto Lenders have caused this Eleventh Amendment to
the 2002 Amended Servicing Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized corporate officers and their corporate seals to be affixed hereto the day and year written beneath their signatures below; each intending this Amendment shall become
effective on the date first written above. 
  

							
		 		 	AUTO LENDERS LIQUIDATION CENTER, INC.
				
	 Attest:
	 	 /s/ Beverly Shoemaker
	 	By:	 	 /s/ Michael Wimmer

		 	 [Assistant] Secretary
	 	Title:	 	President
				
		 	 (Corp. Seal)
	 	Dated:	 	11/19/2009

  

							
		 		 	 BOSTON SERVICE COMPANY, INC. t/a
 HANN FINANCIAL SERVICE CORP.

				
	 Attest:
	 	 /s/ Andrea E. Szagala
	 	By:	 	 /s/ Charles A. Dovico

		 	 [Assistant] Secretary
	 	Title:	 	President & CEO
				
		 	 (Corp. Seal)
	 	Dated:	 	11/17/2009
Dallas R. DELAY, Appellant, v. Anne PRECYTHE, et al., Respondents.

WD 81190

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: June 26, 2018

Dallas R. Delay, Mineral Point, MO, Appellant, pro se.

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Brook D. McCarrick, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondents.

Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, and Alok Ahuja and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

Dallas Delay appeals the dismissal of his Petition for Declaratory Judgment, challenging the validity of an offender disciplinary rule, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Delay also appeals the dismissal of four related motions. He argues that the motion court erred in dismissing his petition because (1) he alleged an actual, justiciable controversy involving the disciplinary rule and (2) the Missouri Department of Corrections failed to follow formal rule-making procedures when adopting the rule. Delay also argues that the court erred in denying his request for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum and three motions for subpoenas duces tecum related to his petition. Finding that dismissal of Delay's petition *581and related motions was appropriate, we affirm the motion court's rulings. Rule 84.16(b).
H. R. 5603

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 seventh day of January, two thousand and six 

An Act 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Higher Education Extension Act of 2006’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS. 

Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 

(Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking 

‘‘June 30, 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2006’’. 

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension 

Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit 

or otherwise alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the 

durations of, programs contained in the amendments made by the 

Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–

171) to the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and 

the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5774]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM96-1-029]


Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines; Notice Clarifying Implementation Date and Compliance Date

March 11, 2009.
    On February 24, 2009, the Commission issued a final rule in the 
above-captioned proceeding, Order No. 587-T, that incorporated by 
reference into the Commission's regulations, revisions adopted by the 
North American Energy Standards Board to the business practices 
standards for natural gas pipelines. Standards of Business Practices 
for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 126 FERC ] 61,129 (2009). The 
final rule was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2009, (74 
FR 9162) and became effective April 2, 2009. Under the implementation 
schedule established in the rule, natural gas pipelines are required to 
implement the standards on August 1, 2009, and file tariff sheets to 
reflect the changed standards on June 1, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5774 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Wilson, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 95]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered April 29, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court credited the arresting officer’s testimony that the police initially approached the defendant because of his resemblance to an individual portrayed in a police department “wanted” poster, and we find no basis to disturb that credibility determination *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The officer testified that a wanted poster is generated after an individual is identified as the perpetrator of a crime. Based on the defendant’s resemblance to the individual in the wanted poster, the police had, at the very least, the right to approach *409him to request information *(see People v*Bethea, 239 AD2d 510 [1997]; *see also People v Jacob,*202 AD2d 444 [1994]).

The defendant’s subsequent flight when the officers asked if they could speak to him provided reasonable suspicion to pursue and stop him *(see People v Woods,*98 NY2d 627 [2002]; *People v Martinez,*80 NY2d 444, 447-448 [1992]; *People v Sergeant,*281 AD2d 438, 439 [2001]), and his abandonment of a weapon during the chase provided the police with probable cause to arrest him *(see People v Wigfall,*295 AD2d 222, 223 [2002]; *People v Cummings,*291 AD2d 454, 455 [2002]; *People v Lipsey,*247 AD2d 246 [1998]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the drugs recovered upon a search of his pockets *(see People v Cummings, supra; People v Valentine,*220 AD2d 708, 709 [1995]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIGOBERTO MARTINEZ MURILLO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-73075

Agency No. A095-448-387

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Rigoberto Martinez Murillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Martinez Murillo’s

FILED

APR 13 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-73075

application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal and constitutional questions raised in

immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We agree with the IJ’s conclusion that Martinez Murillo’s girlfriend’s son

does not meet the statutory definition of “child” and therefore cannot serve as a

qualifying relative for his cancellation of removal application. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(b)(1)(B); see also Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir.

1983) (per curiam) (“the Act’s definition of ‘child’ includes only stepchildren

whose status as such was created by marriage”). Martinez Murillo cannot

demonstrate any error, so his due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a

due process challenge). 

We lack jurisdiction to review Martinez Murillo’s contention that his

girlfriend’s son is his de facto child, or that the son has been legitimated under

statute, because Martinez Murillo failed to raise these issues before the BIA 
3 06-73075

and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft,

358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review

contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael A. Gerlich, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Gastar Exploration Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify
that the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 (the Report), filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I further certify that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 4, 2010



/s/ MICHAEL A. GERLICHMichael A. GerlichVice President and Chief Financial Officer
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

July 24, 2006

Mr. Robert M. Greenberg

Legal Services

524 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 101

Arlington, TX 76011

Mr.  Andrew  D. Graham

Jackson Walker, L.L.P.

901 Main Street, Suite 6000

Dallas, TX 75202

RE:Case Number:  06-0565

Court of Appeals Number:  05-06-00624-CV

Trial Court Number:  04-05208-I

Style:IN RE  PAH CO. AND PETER A. HALMOS

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted in part the motion for temporary relief and issued a stay order in the above-referenced case.  A copy of this Court’s order is enclosed.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Gena Pelham, Deputy Clerk

Case No. 06-0565Page 1
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, J. Russell Porter,
Chief Executive Officer of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007 (the Report), filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: May 15, 2007



/s/ J. RUSSELL PORTERJ. Russell PorterChief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,444] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 2, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Graphic Visual Solution Inc., Greensboro, North Carolina. 

This petition is a photocopy of petition TA-W-65,455 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. 

Further investigation in this case would serve no purpose and this petition is terminated. 

      ( print page 11765)    
Signed at Washington, DC this 10th day of March, 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-5923 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT
      10.15




Mr. Edward
        Dallin Bagley
 2350
        Oakhill Drive
 Holladay,
        Utah 84121
 
 Re:
        Severance Package
 
 Dear
        Dal:
 
 As
        discussed, in connection with your resignation as a director of ClearOne
        Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) effective [DATE] (the “Effective Date”).
        This letter will serve to set forth the severance package (the “Agreement”)
        between the Company and you (the “Director”).
 
 **1.**  **Severance
        Pay, Bonus, and Vacation** .
        As a
        severance payment, Director will be paid a lump sum payment of $200,000 on
        the
        Effective Date, less any required withholding taxes. No further board of
        director compensation shall accrue after the Effective Date. The Company
        will
        compensate Director for his services from July 1, 2007 through the Effective
        Date by paying him a pro rata amount of the $4,000 monthly board of directors
        fee based on the number of days in July during which he acted as a director
        of
        the Company.
 
 **2.**  **Stock
        Options** .
        It is
        acknowledged and agreed that (i) Director presently owns stock option
        exercisable for 185,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Options”),
        (ii) that the Options were granted under the Company’s 1998 Stock Option Plan
        (the “Plan”), and (iii) that pursuant to the terms of the Plan and the related
        Stock Option Grants, as long Director is acting as a consultant to the Company
        the term of the options will not be affected by Director’s resignation from the
        board of directors.
 
 We
        appreciate the contribution you have made as a key Director of the
        Company.
 
 
 Very
        truly yours,
  CLEARONE
        COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
   /s/
        Zee
        Hakimoglu
 
 Zee
        Hakimoglu
 
 
 
 ACCEPTED
        AND AGREED TO:
  
 /s/
        Edward Dallin
        Bagley
 Edward
        Dallin Bagley
 Dated: July 6,
        2007