alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of Louisiana v. Tracy COMMON

No. 2017-KP-1394

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 20, 2018

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

PER CURIAM:

*178Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator 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. In addition, relator's sentencing claims are not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State* , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 ; *see also* *State v. Cotton* , 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030 ; *State v. Thomas* , 08-2912 (La. 10/16/09), 19 So.3d 466.

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 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.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 98-10992 Summary Calendar

ANTHONY RAY ARCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:97-CV-159-X

--------------------- May 7, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Anthony Ray Archer, Texas prisoner #306447, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), following the district court’scertification that his appeal from the dismissal of his civilrights complaint was taken in bad faith. Archer asserts that the district court erred by holding his claims barred by Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641 (1997); that he did not receive due process in three prison disciplinary proceedings; that three guards filedNo. 98-10992 - 2 - false disciplinary reports against him; and that two of the three guards retaliated against him. Archer has failed to brief his assertion that the district court erred by holding his claims barred by Edwards

. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, the punishments Archer received at his disciplinary hearings, a reduction in status and cell and commissary restrictions, do not implicate protected liberty interests. Archer has not shown a due process violation concerning his disciplinary hearings. Madison v. Parker , 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997); Luken v. Scott , 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Archer has failed to brief his retaliation assertions, Brinkmann , 813 F.2d at 748, and he does not allege a favorable termination of his disciplinary proceedings, as is required for any claim based on the filing of false disciplinary reports independent of any retaliation claim. Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1165 n.16 (5th Cir. 1995). Archer’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Archer’s IFP motion is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Archer that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; WARNING ISSUED.
##### 



Exhibit
10.67
 
  
 Award Notice of Restricted Stock Unit Grant
  Company Agreement Plan
 Grant Date:
    
    January 2, 2008Number of RSUs:
    
    199,275, subject to adjustment, as provided in Section 7.7 of the PlanVesting Schedule:
    
    Subject to the provisions of the Agreement and the Plan, and provided
that, except as provided in Section 3 of the Agreement, you remain
continuously employed with the Company through the respective vesting
dates set forth below, the RSUs shall become vested as follows:
 Number of RSUsVesting Date
    
    (subject to adjustment)January 2, 2009
    
    
    49,818January 2, 2010
    
    
    49,819January 2, 2011
    
    
    49,819January 2, 2012
    
    
    49,819




---



##### 



Settlement Date:
    
    Subject to Section 5 of the Agreement and any administrative requirements
of the Company or the Plan administrator, for vested RSUs, the RSUs shall
be settled in accordance with the Vesting Schedule above, and any Company
common stock that is issued at settlement may be sold only as provided in
Section 5 of the Agreement, including sales restrictions contained in
Sections 5(c) and (d) of the Agreement.Except as a result of your death, Disability or Retirement, shares of
Company common stock issued in settlement of RSUs may not be sold until
the fifth anniversary of the Grant Date specified above. Additional
restrictions on the sale of such Company common stock are set forth in
Sections 5(c) and (d) of the Agreement. In particular, it is expected
that all sales will be made pursuant to sales programs to be established
by the Company, which may result in the earliest permissible sale date
for a grant being later than the settlement dates set forth above.
  BearingPoint, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Roderick McGearyRoderick McGeary, Chairman
 Acknowledgment, Acceptance and Agreement
  /s/ F. Edwin Harbach
    
    
    
    1/18/08Signature
    
    
    
    DateF. Edwin HarbachPrint Name
    
    
    
    Employee ID Number
 -2-




---



##### 



BearingPoint, Inc.
 -3-




---



##### 



BEARINGPOINT, INC.
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
 Company Award Recipient RSU Award Notice Agreement Plan Committee
 Grant of Restricted Stock Units.
 Restricted Stock Units
  Vesting of Restricted Stock Units
 Termination of Employment.
  1




---



##### 



provided however provided further
  Termination of Restricted Stock Units and Forfeiture of Restricted Stock Units Gain.
    2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



Settlement of the Restricted Stock Units.
 Issuance of Shares of Common Stock or Cash
  Restrictions on Grant of the Restricted Stock Units and Issuance of Shares
 Restrictions on Sale of Shares
 4




---



##### 



Registration of Shares
 Fractional Shares
 Dividend Equivalents
 Withholding Taxes
 In General Tax Date
 Payment in Cash
 Payment in Shares
 5




---



##### 



Change in Control
 Rights as a Stockholder
 No Employment Rights
 Legends
 Nontransferability of Restricted Stock Units
 Amendment
 6




---



##### 



Waivers; Exceptions
 Administration of this Agreement
 Binding Effect
 Integrated Agreement
 Governing Law
 Construction
  7
**Exhibit 13.1****Certification**     Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the“Exchange Act”), and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of China Unicom Limited (the“Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Exchange Act and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.       Dated: June 29, 2007 By: /s/ Chang Xiaobing    Name:  Chang Xiaobing    Title: Chief Executive Officer       The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under theExchange Act and 18 U.S.C § 1350 and will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theExchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 13.1

                            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 annual report of Galen Holdings PLC (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Roger M. Boissonneault, 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.

Date: December 31, 2003

/s/ Roger M. Boissonneault
------------------------------
Name: Roger M. Boissonneault
Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                       8
STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph Michael KURZ

NO. 2018-KO-0512

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

Denied.
Exhibit 31.1

I, Kurt J. Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer & President, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Trend Mining Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  8/16/03

                               /s/Kurt J. Hoffman
                               ------------------
                                 Kurt J. Hoffman
                             Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

134849 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 134849 COA: 278159 Wayne CC: 03-000809-01 DION PATRICK DAWSON a/k/a DEON PATRICK DAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 27, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELVYN K. FOSTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

LEROY BACA, Sheriff; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56550 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-04701-CAS-AJW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018**

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Melvyn K. Foster appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state 

law claims arising during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-56550 

In his opening brief, Foster fails to address how the district court erred by 

dismissing his action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and declining 

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. As a result, Foster 

has waived his challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 

1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its 

opening brief are deemed waived.”).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 16.1**

21 April 2017 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20549 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We were previously principal accountants for China Unicom (Hong Kong) Limited and, under the date of March 16, 2016, we reported on the consolidatedfinancial statements of the Company as of and for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2015, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015. On May 12, 2016, we were dismissed. 

We have read China Unicom (Hong Kong) Limited’s statements included under Item 16F(a) of its Form 20-F dated April 21, 2017, and we agree withsuch statements, except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with China Unicom (Hong Kong) Limited’s statement that the change was recommended by the board of directors. 

Very truly yours, 

**/s/ KPMG**

Hong Kong, China
Joshua C. THOMAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4680

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(9)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(55)
              - (-)products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(2)
              - multimedia_video(9)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(6)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149250(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(1)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(7)
              - colorado(2)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(3)
              - delaware(1)
              - florida(3)
              - georgia(2)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(4)
              - (-)mississippi(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(4)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(3)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(2)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - rhode island(3)
              - south carolina(3)
              - texas(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(1)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

Data Access        August 24, 2017        Coastal Change Hazards Portal
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 247 (Thursday, December 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 105047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30661]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice: 2024-6130]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to the 
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment 
Request; EIB 10-02, Application for Short-Term Express Export Credit 
Insurance Policy

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the 
proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2025 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV (EIB 10-02), by email [email protected], or 
by mail to Edward Coppola, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 
Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The application tool can be reviewed 
at:https://img.exim.gov/s3fs-public/pub/pending/Express_Application_eib10-02_2024_FINAL_508_1.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    To request additional information, please contact Edward Coppola 
(202) 565-3717.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title and Form Number: EIB 10-02 Application for Short-Term Express 
Export Credit Insurance Policy.
    OMB Number: 3048-0031.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: This form is used by an exporter (or broker acting on 
its behalf) in order to obtain approval for coverage of the repayment 
risk of export sales. The information received allows EXIM staff to 
determine of the eligibility of the applicant and the creditworthiness 
of one of the applicant's foreign buyers for EXIM assistance under its 
programs.
    This is the application form for use by small U.S. businesses with 
limited export experience. Companies that are eligible to use the 
Express policy will need to answer approximately 32 questions and sign 
an acknowledgement of the certifications that appear on the reverse of 
the application form. This program does not provide discretionary 
credit authority to the U.S. exporter, and therefore the financial and 
credit information needs are minimized.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 500.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.25 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 125 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting of Use: Once per year.

    Dated: December 18, 2024.
Andrew Smith,
Records Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-30661 Filed 12-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
1

NUMBER 13-15-00276-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

PATRICIA ANN CACERES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No 1

of Victoria County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Patricia Ann Caceres, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from 

his conviction in trial court cause number 2-105175. The trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of 
2

appeal is not made a part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 

37.1, 44.3, 44.4.

Within thirty days of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, W.A. 'Bill' 

White, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether appellant 

has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to 

whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of 

any amended certification. 

If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is 

further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of this notice, 

identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, No. 04-03-00473-CR, 2003 

Tex. App. LEXIS 7317 (San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (designated for publication) 

(certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that 

defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the form). The 

motion must include an analysis of the applicable case law, and any factual allegations 

therein must be true and supported by the record. Cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 

316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that 

recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of 

record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting 

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,

10.2.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

26th day of June 2015.