alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

LONNIE SEWELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-114 PS

 )

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Lonnie Sewell, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge

his parole revocation on August 9, 2011. (Sewell states in his petition that the hearing occurred

on September 9, 2011, but he also attached the a copy of the hearing report which shows that it

was held on August 9, 2011.) Though he used a form designed for challenging a prison

disciplinary hearing, it is nevertheless clear that he has not presented any of his claims to the state

courts. 

However, before I can consider his claims, he must first present them to the state courts.

“This means that the petitioner must raise the issue at each and every level in the state court

system, including levels at which review is discretionary rather than mandatory.” Lewis v.

Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025-1026 (7th Cir. 2004). There are two possible methods for

challenging a parole revocation in Indiana: by filing a post-conviction relief petition, Receveur v.

Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), or by filing a state habeas corpus petition if the

inmate is seeking immediate release. Lawson v. State, 845 N.E.2d 185, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Furthermore, if a state habeas corpus petition is improperly filed, it will be converted to a post-
conviction petition. Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740, 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); Ward v. Ind.

Parole Bd., 805 N.E.2d 893 (2004). 

Here, Sewell has not filed either of those petitions in state court. Therefore he has not

exhausted his State court remedies and this federal habeas corpus petition must be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. 

SO ORDERED.

Entered: February 27, 2013.

 s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-147157) pertaining to the Employees Savings Plan of Zep Inc., and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-162466) pertaining to the registration of $200,000,000 of Common Stock, Preferred Stock, Preferred Stock Purchase
Rights, Depository Shares, Debt Securities, Warrants, Purchase Contracts and Units of Zep Inc.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated
October 29, 2009, with respect to the consolidated and combined financial statements and schedule of Zep Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Zep Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended August 31, 2009.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia

October 29, 2009
Frank IACABONI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1009.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
BG GROUP PLC, petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA.

No. 12-138.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Motion of American Arbitration Association for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* . Motion of Professors and Practitioners of Arbitration Law for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Motion of AWG Group Limited for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Motion of United States Council for International Business for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-26-TLS 

)

JOHN BENNETT )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 30], filed on August 6, 2013. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 30] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offenses charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment are hereby

accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offenses. 

Any request for a sentence involving a departure under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, or for a variance above or below a Guidelines sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

with the exception of matters raised pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines, shall be communicated to

the probation officer and opposing counsel, in writing, within fourteen (14) days following initial

disclosure of the pre-sentence report. Any sentencing memorandum addressing these or any other

issues, including requests for a departure based on § 5K1.1, shall be filed with the Court no later

than seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing. The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence

scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on August 27, 2013. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Amendment 2004-1 to the 2001 Director's Deferred Compensation/Stock Award Plan



 Exhibit 10.27 
  
 AMENDMENT 2004-1 
 TO THE 
  
 UNOCAL CORPORATION 
 2001 DIRECTORS’ DEFERRED COMPENSATION 
 AND STOCK AWARD PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, Unocal
Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Unocal Corporation 2001 Directors’ Deferred Compensation and Stock Award Plan, as amended (the “Plan”); 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has the authority to amend the Plan, and has determined that it is advisable and in
the best interests of the stockholders of the Company to amend the Plan as set forth herein. 
  
 RESOLVED, that the Plan be, and hereby is, amended, effective on and subject to stockholder approval of the Unocal Corporation 2004 Directors’ Deferred Compensation and Restricted Stock Unit Award Plan
(the “2004 Plan”) at the 2004 annual meeting of stockholders, as follows: 
  

	 	1.	A new Section 14 is hereby added to the Plan to read as follows: 

  
 “14. Transfer of Accounts into 2004 Directors’ Deferred Compensation and Restricted Stock Unit Award Plan. 
  
 Upon stockholder approval of the Unocal Corporation 2004
Directors’ Deferred Compensation and Restricted Stock Unit Award Plan (the “2004 Plan”) at the 2004 annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders, the Stock Units (and dividend equivalents credited with respect thereto) credited
to the Stock Unit Account of each Participant under this Plan shall be transferred and credited to a Stock Unit Account established for such Participant under the 2004 Plan as of such date and shall thereafter be governed by the terms of the 2004
Plan; including, without limitation, the provisions in the 2004 Plan that any deferral election with respect to compensation earned and to be earned in calendar year 2004 filed under this Plan shall be effective for the deferral of such compensation
under the 2004 Plan, and any distribution election and beneficiary designation made by any Participant under this Plan shall apply with respect to such Stock Units (and dividend equivalents credited with respect thereto) and with respect to such
Participant’s participation under the 2004 Plan unless and until the Participant makes a different election in accordance with the terms of the 2004 Plan.” 
  

	 	2.	A new Section 15 is added to the Plan to read as follows: 

  
 “15. No Additional Grants. 
  
 Effective upon stockholder approval of the 2004 Plan, no additional awards of stock options or credits of stock units will be made under
this Plan; provided, however, 

  









 
that, pursuant to Section 3, the Plan and the Committee’s authority hereunder shall continue in effect until all matters relating to outstanding awards
have been completed.” 
  
 In the event stockholder approval
of the 2004 Plan is not obtained, this Amendment shall have no force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to confirm the adoption of this Amendment by the Board as of the 10th day of February, 2004. 
  

			
	

	By:	 	 
	 Its:
	 	 


  

 2
forms3d_feb09exh4-2.htm


    EXHIBIT
4.2

     

     

    STATE
BANCORP, INC.

     

    AMENDMENT
NO. 1 (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 27, 2009) TO THE

     

    AMENDED
AND RESTATED

     

    DIVIDEND
REINVESTMENT AND STOCK PURCHASE PLAN NO. 2

     

    


     

    WHEREAS,
State Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted the Dividend Reinvestment and Stock
Purchase Plan on May 23, 2000 and amended and restated such plan on July 29,
2008 (the “Plan”);

    


    WHEREAS,
Section 15 of the Plan provides that the Company shall have complete authority
to, among other things, amend the Plan;

    


    WHEREAS,
the Company wishes to amend the Plan to increase the amount of registered shares
of common stock, par value $5.00 per share, of the Company and to modify the
purchase price of shares purchased under the Plan.

    


    NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:

     

    Section
8.01 of the Plan shall be amended as follows:

     

    The
Company has set aside 3,000,000 shares of Common Stock to be available for
purchase under the Plan, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 16
hereof.

     

    Section
8.02(b) of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as
follows:

     

    The
purchase price to each Participant of Common Stock purchased from the Company
shall not be less than the greater of (i) eighty-five percent (85%) of the
Fair Market Value of the Common Stock on the last business day of the calendar
quarter immediately preceding the Investment Date involved or (ii) the par
value of the Common Stock.  The purchase price per share allocated to
each Participant of Common Stock purchased on the open market shall normally be
the weighted average purchase price of all Common Stock so purchased under the
Plan each quarter.

    


    In Witness
Whereof, this Amendment has been executed by the undersigned officer of
State Bancorp, Inc. pursuant to authority given by the Board of
Directors.

     

    


    


    State
Bancorp, Inc.

    


    


    


    By:      
/s/ Patricia M.
Schaubeck

    Name: 
Patricia M. Schaubeck

    Title:   
General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Subramanian Sundaresh, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Adaptec, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the "Form 10-Q"), that the
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the quarterly periods covered by the Form 10-Q.

|Date: August 8, 2007 | By: /s/ SUBRAMANIAN SUNDARESH
                Subramanian SundareshChief Executive Officer
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, Christopher O'Meara, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Form 10-Q, that the Form 10-Q
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-Q.

|Date: August 8, 2007 | By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER O'MEARA
                Christopher O'MearaChief Financial Officer
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 22245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11195]




[[Page 22243]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





The President





_______________________________________________________________________



Presidential Determination No. 95-20--Suspending Prohibitions on 
Certain Sales and Leases Under the Anti-Economic Discrimination Act of 
1994


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President  
[[Page 22245]] 
                Presidential Determination No. 95-20 of May 1, 1995

                
Suspending Prohibitions on Certain Sales and 
                Leases Under the Anti-Economic Discrimination Act of 
                1994

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 564 
                of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (``the 
                Act''), Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Public Law 103-236, 
                as amended, I hereby:

                (1) determine and certify that the following countries 
                do not currently maintain a policy or practice of 
                sending letters to United States firms requesting 
                compliance with, or soliciting information regarding 
                compliance with, the Arab League secondary or tertiary 
                boycott of Israel:

                Djibouti, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, 
                Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Tunisia, and Uganda.

                (2) determine that suspension of the application of 
                section 564(a) of the Act to the following countries 
                until May 1, 1996, is in the national interest of the 
                United States, and will promote the objectives of 
                section 564 to eliminate the Arab boycott:

                Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Jordan, Kuwait, 
                Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United 
                Arab Emirates.

                (3) determine that it is in the national security 
                interest of the United States to suspend until May 1, 
                1996, the application of subsection (a) of section 564 
                of the Act with respect to Lebanon.

                You are authorized and directed to report this 
                determination to the appropriate committees of the 
                Congress and to publish it in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, May 1, 1995.

[FR Doc. 95-11195
[Filed 5-3-95; 9:37 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
0802-0910920-1 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  The Board of Directors  U.S. Bank National Association We have examined management's  assertion, included in the accompanying  Report on Assessment of Compliance with  Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC's Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007,  except for  servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)(xiv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing  platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination  included  testing of less than all of  the individual asset backed  transactions  and securities that comprise the  Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform,   and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our  procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures  were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts  calculated or  reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the  aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. /s/ Ernst & Young LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota February 12, 2008
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 100 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2024 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make 

a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 2882. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2882, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following correction: 

5 Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘Making further con6 solidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending Sep7 tember 30, 2024, and for other purposes.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HCON 100 RDS 

Passed the House of Representatives March 22, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Winnie Wong, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 20-F of Alianza Minerals Ltd.;



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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The Companys other certifying officer 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 Company and have:



a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;



c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   May 19, 2017





/s/  Winnie Wong

Winnie Wong,

Chief Financial Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1457 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the deduction 

for the travel expenses of a taxpayer’s spouse who accompanies the 

taxpayer on business travel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore 

the deduction for the travel expenses of a taxpayer’s 

spouse who accompanies the taxpayer on business travel. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR TRAVEL EX4 PENSES OF SPOUSE, ETC. ACCOMPANYING 

5 TAXPAYER ON BUSINESS TRAVEL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (m) of section 274 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 

8 limitations on travel expenses) is amended by striking 

9 paragraph (3). 
2 

•HR 1457 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
KENTUCKY, petitioner, v. Hollis Deshaun KING.

No. 12-140.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kentucky denied.