alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Margaret BACH, petitioner, v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN, et al.

No. 13-5881.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12396]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Docket A(32b1)-7-95]


Foreign-Trade Zone 155--Calhoun County, Texas, Request for Export 
Manufacturing Authority, ABB Randall Corporation (Gas Plant Modules)

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) by the Calhoun-Victoria FTZ, Inc., grantee of FTZ 155, 
pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1) of the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 
400), requesting authority on behalf of ABB Randall Corporation (ABB 
Randall) to manufacture gas plant modules for export under zone 
procedures within FTZ 155. It was formally filed on May 8, 1995.
    The authority would be used for the fabrication of nine gas plant 
modules for shipment abroad as part of an overseas plant construction 
contract involving ABB Randall which will be completed by the end of 
1996. Certain components (about 80% of total) would be sourced from 
abroad, including: flat rolled steel and steel alloy products, steel 
and steel alloy bars/rods and angles/shapes, reservoirs/vessels/tanks 
(iron or steel), steel, copper and aluminum wire, steel, copper and 
aluminum pipe/tubing, pumps, electric power motors and generators, 
electrical signaling devices, and electrical machines.
    Because all of the modules would be exported, zone procedures would 
exempt ABB Randall from Customs duty payments on the foreign materials.
    Public comment on the application is invited from interested 
parties. Submissions (original and three copies) shall be addressed to 
the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing 
period of their receipt is June 19, 1995. Rebuttal comments in response 
to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted 
during the subsequent 15-day period to July 3, 1995.
    A copy of the application and the accompanying exhibits will be 
available for public inspection at the following location: Office of 
the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 3716, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

    Dated: May 12, 1995.
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12396 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Kenneth MITAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1373.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) NO. 2:14-CR-32

) 2:14-CR-31

KEITH SODERQUIST, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the “Plea Agreement,” filed

by the Government as to Defendant, Keith Soderquist, on January 19,

2016, in both of the above-captioned cases (DE #96 in Cause No.

2:14-cr-31 and DE #92 in Cause No. 2:14-cr-32). 

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry

for report and recommendation (DE #99 in Cause No. 2:14-cr-31 and

DE #94 in Cause No. 2:14-cr-32). The Magistrate Judge held a

change of plea hearing on January 20, 2016. The Magistrate Judge

found that Keith Soderquist knowingly and voluntarily entered into

a plea agreement as to Count III of the Indictment in Cause No.

2:14-cr-32, and that he knowingly and voluntarily was waiving his

appeal rights in Cause No. 2:14-cr-31, withdrawing the pending

motions in 2:14-cr-31, and agreeing to not file any additional

motions for a new trial in 2:14-cr-31. (DE #102 in Cause No. 2:14-

cr-31, DE #102 in Cause No. 2:14-cr-32.) 
More than 14 days have passed and no party has filed any

objection to the Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(2); see also Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904

(7th Cir. 1999) (explaining that the failure to file a timely

objection will result in the waiver of the right to challenge a

report and recommendation). Therefore, the parties have waived

their right to challenge the report and recommendation. 

Accordingly, the Court now ADOPTS those findings and

recommendations (DE #102 in Cause No. 2:14-cr-31, DE #102 in Cause

No. 2:14-cr-32), ACCEPTS the guilty plea of Defendant Keith

Soderquist, and FINDS the Defendant guilty of Count III of the

Indictment in Cause No. 2:14-cr-32. 

Sentencing will be set by the Court under separate cover. 

DATED: February 16, 2016 /s/ James T. Moody, Judge

United States District Court

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00002-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 213th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1466397D

Before Kerr, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

MILES JOSHUA WOODS, Appellant

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Miles Joshua Woods pleaded guilty to the second-degree-felony 

offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a lesser-included offense)

1 in 

exchange for eight years of deferred-adjudication community supervision. See Tex. 

Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2), (b).

The State subsequently petitioned to proceed to adjudication, and Woods 

pleaded true to the State’s allegations.2 The trial court found the allegations true, 

adjudicated Woods guilty, and sentenced him to 12 years’ confinement. See id.

§ 12.33(a) (stating second-degree-felony punishment range of 2 to 20 years); Hammer v. 

State, 461 S.W.3d 301, 303–04 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.) (“Generally, 

punishment within the statutory limits is not excessive, cruel[,] or unusual.”). Woods 

raised no objections at the punishment hearing or upon his sentence’s 

pronouncement. In his motion for new trial, Woods argued only that “[t]he verdict is 

contrary to the law and evidence. There is newly discovered evidence.”

Woods complains on appeal that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the 

offense and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and 

unusual punishment. Because Woods failed to raise this complaint in the trial court by 

1

Woods had been charged with having killed Alfredo Luna by stabbing him

with a knife in July 2016.

2

The State alleged that Woods had violated his community supervision by

using, possessing, or consuming alcohol, by committing a DWI, and by being 

unsuccessfully discharged from the SWIFT court program.
3

objecting to the length of his sentence following pronouncement or by asserting any 

challenge to it in his motion for new trial, he has failed to preserve it for appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Sample v. State, 405 S.W.3d 295, 303–04 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 2013, pet. ref’d). We overrule Woods’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr

Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 8, 2023
In re Henry M. MITCHELL, aka Henry Cephus Hayes, petitioner.

No. 12-9357.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for *1854writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
##### 



Exhibit 10.41
 
 Amendment No. 1 Licensor Licensee party parties
  License Agreement
   Amendment to Section 6.07 of the License Agreement
 Guaranteed Minimum Royalties Guaranteed Minimum Royalties 2007 Guaranteed Minimum Royalty provided




---



##### 



Calendar Year
    
    AmountCalendar year ending December 31, 2007
    
    $1,000,000, plus interest on any amount thereof paid after December 1, 2007, from December 1, 2007 until the date of payment at the following interest rates:From December 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 - the then current prime rate as quoted in The Wall  Street Journal(the Prime Rate) plus 3% per annum;From January 1, 2008 through January 31, 2008 - the then current Prime Rate  plus 3.5% per annum;From February 1, 2008 through February 29, 2008 -  the then current Prime Rate plus 4.0% per annum; andFrom and after March 1, 2008 - the then current Prime Rate plus 4.5% per annum.Calendar year ending December 31, 2008
    
    $
    1,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2009
    
    $
    1,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2010
    
    $
    2,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2011
    
    $
    2,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2012
    
    $
    2,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2013
    
    $
    3,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2014
    
    $
    3,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2015
    
    $
    3,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2016
    
    $
    3,000,000Every calendar year thereafter during the Term
    
    The Guaranteed Minimum Royalty for the immediately previous calendar year plus five percent (5%)
 2




---



##### 



Amendment to Section 6.12 of the License Agreement
 Late Payments provided
 Effect of Amendment
 Governing Law
 Execution in Counterparts
  3




---



##### 



LICENSOR
MUHAMMAD ALI ENTERPRISES LLCBy:
    CKX G.O.A.T. Holding Corp., its managing memberBy:
    /s/ Thomas P. BensonName:
    Thomas P. BensonTitle:
    Executive Vice President and TreasurerLICENSEE
FX LUXURY REALTY, LLCBy:
    FX Real Estate and Entertainment Inc.,Managing MemberBy:
    /s/ Paul C. KanavosName:
    Paul C. KanavosTitle:
    President
Carl DREWERY and Roy Tarver, petitioners v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7127.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Maurice D. VAUGHN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6632.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00053-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 02/26/14 page 1 of 7
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00053-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 02/26/14 page 2 of 7
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00053-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 02/26/14 page 3 of 7
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00053-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 02/26/14 page 4 of 7
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00053-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 02/26/14 page 5 of 7
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00053-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 02/26/14 page 6 of 7
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00053-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 02/26/14 page 7 of 7
# Službeni list C 447A/12.

| | ISSN 1977-1088 |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | C 447A |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Informacije i objave | Godište 61.12. prosinca 2018. |

ISSN 1977-1088

Službeni list

Europske unije

C 447A

Hrvatsko izdanje

Informacije i objave

Godište 61.12. prosinca 2018.

---

| Sadržaj | Stranica |
| --- | --- |
| | V.   Objave |
| | ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPCI |
| | Europsko nadzorno tijelo za bankarstvo |
| 2018/C 447 A/01 | Obavijest o javnom natječaju za radno mjesto predsjednik EBA-e (stupanj AD 15) – Pariz, Francuska – EBA TA 21/2018 | 1 |

Sadržaj

Stranica

V.   Objave

ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPCI

Europsko nadzorno tijelo za bankarstvo

2018/C 447 A/01

Obavijest o javnom natječaju za radno mjesto predsjednik EBA-e (stupanj AD 15) – Pariz, Francuska – EBA TA 21/2018

1

---

| HR | |
| --- | --- |

HR

---

V. Objave

ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPCI

Europsko nadzorno tijelo za bankarstvo

| 12.12.2018 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | CA 447/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2018

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

CA 447/1

---

OBAVIJEST O JAVNOM NATJEČAJU ZA RADNO MJESTO PREDSJEDNIK EBA-E (STUPANJ AD 15) – PARIZ, FRANCUSKA – EBA TA 21/2018

(2018/C 447 A/01)

Europsko nadzorno tijelo za bankarstvo („EBA”) neovisno je nadzorno tijelo Europske unije osnovano 1. siječnja 2011. Uredbom (EU) br. 1093/2010 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća.

U cilju poboljšanja funkcioniranja unutarnjeg tržišta Europske unije, EBA pridonosi osiguravanju učinkovitih te dosljednih propisa i nadzora visoke kvalitete u područjima svoje nadležnosti. Promiče i javne vrijednosti kao što su stabilnost financijskog sustava, transparentnost tržišta i financijskih proizvoda te zaštita deponenata i ulagača.

Radi na sprječavanju regulatorne arbitraže i osiguravanju jednakih pravila poslovanja, jača međunarodnu koordinaciju nadzora, promiče konvergenciju nadzora te savjetuje institucije Unije u područjima regulacije i nadzora bankarstva, plaćanja i elektroničkog novca te s time povezanih pitanja korporativnog upravljanja, revizije i financijskog izvještavanja.

Predsjednik je neovisni stručnjak zaposlen na puno radno vrijeme i član osoblja EBA-e. On odgovara Odboru nadzornih tijela EBA-e te redovito izvještava Odbor nadzornih tijela o razvoju EBA-inih djelatnosti.

Za podroban sadržaj natječaja i detaljne upute o postupku prijave, molimo konzultirajte našu Internetsku stranicu:

https://eba.europa.eu/about-us/careers

Prijave koje sadržavaju životopis (po mogućnosti u formatu Europass), motivacijsko pismo i popunjeni obrazac za izjavu na engleskom jeziku s datumom i vlastoručno potpisane potrebno je dostaviti na sljedeću adresu: EBAChair-applications@eba.europa.eu do 11. siječnja 2019. u 12:00 sati po londonskom vremenu.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Annual Certification Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of FX Real Estate and Entertainment Inc.,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007;
 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrant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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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):
 (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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ ROBERT F.X. SILLERMANRobert F.X. SillermanChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
# FILED
August 17, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE JUNE 1998 SESS ION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) No. 03C01-9708-CC-00322

) ) Greene County v. ) ) Honorable James E. Beckner, J udge ) BOBBY JOE BALL, ) (Robbery) ) Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the results an d most of the reasoning presented i n the majority opinion. However, I hesitate to accept the proposi tion implied in the opinion t hat the fact that property of only small value is taken in robbery is of no mitigating consequence in sentencing.

Historically, the

amount of property taken has been a standard by which to determine the seriousness of a theft- related crime. The same is tr ue today. Enhancement factor (6), T.C.A. § 40-35-114 , allows for enhancement of a sentence if personal injury is inflicted upon a victim or the amount of damage to property s ustained by or taken from the vict im are particularly great. Thus, the value of pr operty taken in a robbery could be so gr

eat as to call for enhancement under factor (6). The recogniz ed relevance of the value of property to sentencing is not a one-way street, though. In this sense, I am not willing to hold that the minimal value of property taken can never act in mitigation.2 In the pre sent case , the def endant a rgues tha t the taki ng of fo rty-two dollars and a pocket knife “i s not a robbery whic h would rise to the need to enhance the defendant’s sentence to its maxi mum limit of ten years.” H owever, the main sentenc ing concerns relate to the defendant commi tting a robbery by violence and his prev

ious criminal record and prev ious history of unwil lingness to comply w ith conditions of release into the community. If I were to accept the defendant’s proposition that the amount of property taken was not substantial, that fact pales i n comparison to the manner in which it was obtained and of the defendant ’s past history. It is for these reasons that I concur in the majority opinion.

____________________________ Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

UNVERFERTH MFG. CO., INC., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 3:13-CV-97-TLS 

 ) 

PAR-KAN CO., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On September 11, 2014, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement [ECF No. 83] that 

contained a request that the Court vacate the claim construction hearing scheduled for September 

15, 2014. The Court being duly advised of the settlement between the parties VACATES the 

hearing scheduled for Monday September 15, 2014 at 1:00 PM. 

SO ORDERED on September 12, 2014. 

 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION
December 11, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NGOZI ORISAKWE IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND BOARD 

CHAIR OF UMUADA IGBO IN DISPORA USA, INC., HOUSTON CHAPTER; 

AND NGOZI ORISAKWE, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellants

NO. 14-14-00691-CV V.

BRIDGET B. AKAZIE, AGNES OLOLO COMMY AWAGWU AND JANE 

DOE NOS. 1-20, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order 

signed by the court below on February 4, 2014. Having considered the motion and 

found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellants, Ngozi Orisakwe in her capacity as President and Board Chair of 

Umuada Igbo in Dispora USA, Inc., Houston Chapter; and Ngozi Orisakwe, 

Individually, jointly and severally.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2022 WY 84

 April Term, A.D. 2022

June 29, 2022

ROBERT J. LAWLER,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-22-0061

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S 

ORDER REVOKING PROBATION

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that 

Appellant has not filed a pro se brief in the time allotted. Appellant took this appeal to 

challenge the district court’s December 28, 2021, Probation Revocation Disposition and 

Order of Probation. Appellant admitted he violated his probation. The district court 

revoked probation and imposed a sentence of two to four years on Appellant’s conviction

for felony driving under the influence. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(b)(i) & (e). The district 

court suspended that sentence in favor of three years of supervised probation.

[¶2] On April 29, 2022, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel e-filed a Motion 

to Withdraw as Counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 

1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently entered an Order Granting 

Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief. This Court ordered that, on or before 

June 16, 2022, Appellant was permitted to file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the 

issues he would like the Court to consider in this appeal. This Court also provided notice 

that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would make its ruling on 

counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal. 

Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted. 
[¶3] Now, following a careful review of the record and the Anders brief submitted by 

appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be 

granted and the district court’s Probation Revocation Disposition and Order of Probation

should be affirmed. It is, therefore, 

[¶4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel 

for Appellant Robert J. Lawler, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for 

Appellant; and it is further

[¶5] ORDERED that the Campbell County District Court’s December 28, 2021, 

Probation Revocation Disposition and Order of Probation, be, and the same hereby is, 

affirmed.

[¶6] DATED this 29th day of June, 2022.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

KATE M. FOX

Chief Justice
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Eco Building Products, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Conboy, President, Principal 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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/ Steve Conboy


Steve Conboy


President


Principal Executive Officer


Principal Financial Officer


September 28, 2011
Erika JACOBS, petitioner, v. NONPUBLIC POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSION.

No. 13-5168.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.