alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TE XAS

N O

. WR-13,374-05

EX P ARTE BOB BY JAMES MOORE, App licant

ORDER P URSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF

AP P ELL ATE PR OCEDURE 9.10

P e r c u r i a m

.

O R D E R

T h i s c a u s e i s b e f

o r e t h i s C o u r t o n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s f r o m t r i a l

c o u r t c a s e n u m b e r 3 1 4 4 8 3

- C i n t h e 1 8 5 D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f H a r r i s C o u n t y

. t h

T h e C l e r k o f t h i s C o u r t h a s d i s c o v e r e d s e n s i t i v e d a t a i n t h e r e c o r d

, n a m e l y :

p e r s o n a l i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n i n f

o r m a t i o n

. T E X

. R

. A P P

. P

. 9

. 1 0 ( a )

. P u r s u a n t t o T e x a s R u l e o f

A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 9

. 1 0

, t h e C l e r k s o u g h t a r u l i n g f r o m t h e C o u r t a n d t h e r e a f t e r n o t i f i e d

t h e p a r t i e s

. T h e C o u r t n o w o r d e r s t h e C l e r k o f t h i s C o u r t t o r e d a c t o r s e a l t h e d i s c o v e r e d

s e n s i t i v e d a t a f

r o m t h e r e c o r d s i d e n t i f

i e d a n d l i s t e d b e l o w

. T h e C o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r s t h e

t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k

, t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

, o r a n y e n t i t y o r i n d i v i d u a l p o s s e s s i n gRule 9.10 Order - 2

t h e f o l l o w i n g d o c u m e n t s t o r e d a c t o r s e a l t h e d o c u m e n t s p u r s u a n t t o t h i s o r d e r :

1

. C l e r k ’ s R e c o r d V o l

. 2

2

. C l e r k ’ s R e c o r d V o l

. 7

F i l e d : J a n u a r y 2 5

, 2 0 1 6

D o n o t p u b l i s h
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-11-00701-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 11DCV187301

Style: Glenn Blair

v Angela McClinton

Date motion filed*: July 17, 2013

Type of motion: Motion to supplement the record

Party filing motion: Appellant, Glenn Blair

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes 

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle.

Date: October 1, 2013
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research: Frederick, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USDA Civil Rights Policy StatementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Foreign Disease Weed Science Research Unit
 Rating plant pathogens
 Historic Fort Detrick glasshouses


**Mission:**Providing responsive high-containment research that secures the nation’s food supply, agricultural economy, and environmental health against the threat of invasive foreign plant diseases and weeds. **Vision:**We envision U.S. agriculture and our environment made safe from the threat of foreign plant diseases and weeds.


Publications
                            More... The soybean Rpp3 gene encodes a TIR-NBS-LRR protein that confers resistance to Phakopsora pachyrhizi Rathayibacter toxicus: development of a gene knock-out system and interactions with Anguina and Afrina nematodes native to the U.S. Almond can be infected by Plum Pox Virus-D isolate Penn4 and is a transmission-competent host


Northeast Area   joanne.crouch@usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATIONS


I, William Y. Tauscher, certify that:


1.     I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blackhawk Network Holdings, 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;


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 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) 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 principles;


(c) 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


(d) 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(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):


(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.


Date: August 21, 2015By:/s/William Y. TauscherWilliam Y. TauscherChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board(Principal Executive Officer)
1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-4082

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Reginald Irish, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 30, 2008 Filed: July 31, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges

___________ PER CURIAM. Reginald Irish pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) a nd 924(a)(2). The district court 1 sentenced Irish to 77 months in prison and 3 years of superv ised release. On appeal, Irish’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Irish has filed thr ee pro se briefs. For the fo llowing reasons, we reject the arguments that they have raised.-2- First, the Second Amendment does notbar laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. See Dist. of Columbia v. Heller , 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-17 (2008). Second, Congress did not exceed its authority or violate the Commerce Clause when it enacted section 922(g). SeeUnited States v. Hill , 386 F.3d 855, 859 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. Shepherd , 284 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir. 2002). Third, general federal criminal laws like section 922(g) apply nationwide. SeeLewis v. United States , 523 U.S. 155, 171 (1998). Last, the required nexus between a firearm and commerce is established by showing th at the firearm at one time traveled in interstate commerce. See United States v. Leathers , 354 F.3d 955, 959 (8th Cir. 2004).
After reviewing the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Irish’s motions for appoi ntment of new counsel and for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.17(a)    
    


 
 

AGREEMENT    
    


        For good and valuable consideration, the Agreement effective February 27, 2003 through January 16, 2004 by and among The Downs Racing, Inc.
and The Pennsylvania Harness Horsemen Association, Inc. and all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement are hereby extended by the mutual consent of all parties through 11:59 pm on
March 16, 2004. 


        To
indicate their acceptance of this extension of the Agreement, the duly authorized agents of the parties have executed below. 



	THE DOWNS RACING, INC.	 	 
	
By:	

/s/  RICHARD ORBANN      
	
 	

 
	Name:	Richard Orbann
	 	 
	Title:	President
	 	 
	Date:	Feb 15, 2004
	 	 
	

 	

 	
 	

 
	THE PENNSYLVANIA HARNESS HORSEMEN ASSOCIATION, INC.	 	 
	
By:	

	
 	

 
	Name:	Ronald P. Battoni
	 	 
	Title:	Executive Director
	 	 
	Date:	Feb 13, 2004
	 	 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.17(a)


AGREEMENT
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1879 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the unrelated 

business taxable income rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. CAMP 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 modify 

the unrelated business taxable income rules. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 512(B)(13). 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (13) of section 512(b) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special 

6 rules for certain amounts received from controlled entities) 

7 is amended by redesignating subparagraph (E) as sub8 paragraph (F) and by inserting after subparagraph (D) 

9 the following new subparagraph: 
2 

•HR 1879 IH 

1 ‘‘(E) PARAGRAPH TO APPLY ONLY TO EX2 CESS PAYMENTS.— 

3 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) 

4 shall apply only to the portion of a speci5 fied payment received or accrued by the 

6 controlling organization that exceeds the 

7 amount which would have been paid or ac8 crued if such payment met the require9 ments prescribed under section 482. 

10 ‘‘(ii) ADDITION TO TAX FOR VALU11 ATION MISSTATEMENTS.—The tax imposed 

12 by this chapter on the controlling organiza13 tion shall be increased by an amount equal 

14 to 20 percent of the larger of— 

15 ‘‘(I) such excess determined with16 out regard to any amendment or sup17 plement to a return of tax, or 

18 ‘‘(II) such excess determined 

19 with regard to all such amendments 

20 and supplements.’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

22 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

23 this section shall apply to payments received or ac24 crued after December 31, 2000. 
3 

•HR 1879 IH 

1 (2) PAYMENTS SUBJECT TO BINDING CONTRACT

2 TRANSITION RULE.—If the amendments made by 

3 section 1041 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 did 

4 not apply to any amount received or accrued in the 

5 first 2 taxable years beginning on or after the date 

6 of the enactment of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 

7 under any contract described in subsection (b)(2) of 

8 such section, such amendments also shall not apply 

9 to amounts received or accrued under such contract 

10 before January 1, 2001. 

Æ
#### GIBBONS, Respondent, v. SNARE & TRIEST CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by. Patrick Gibbons against the Snare & Triest Company.

No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13144]



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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-374]


Certain Electrical Connectors and Products Containing Same; Order 
Designating TEO Investigation ``More Complicated'' (Order No. 1)

    At the prehearing conference on May 15, 1995, I proposed a hearing 
schedule that would require the temporary relief part of this 
investigation to be designated ``more complicated.'' Rule 210.60 
provides that the administrative law judge may designate a case more 
complicated by an order ``on the basis of the complexity of the issues 
raised in the motion for temporary relief or the responses thereto, or 
for other good cause shown.''
    In a temporary relief case that is not designated more complicated, 
the initial determination is due 70 days after publication of the 
notice of investigation, and the Commission's determination is due 90 
days after publication of the notice of investigation. In a more 
complicated case, the deadlines are extended to 120 days and 150 days, 
respectively.
    It is found that there is good cause to designate the temporary 
relief part of this case ``more complicated.'' In order to file an 
initial determination within 70 days (i.e., by July 20), it would be 
necessary to hold the hearing in early June. This would conflict with a 
federal district court trial beginning on June 5 which involves the 
same product. One of the respondents active in the case here is a party 
in the district court case. Although that case does not involve the 
same patent that is in issue here, many of the witnesses will be the 
same, and some of the lawyers in the district court case are also in 
this case.
    The temporary relief part of this investigation is designated 
``more complicated'' to permit the hearing in this case to begin on 
June 26, a week after the district court trial is scheduled to end. Two 
weeks have been reserved for the hearing in this case, although I 
expect that it will be completed earlier. I have another hearing 
scheduled to begin on July 10, so a TEO hearing in this case cannot be 
scheduled later in July. The parties will have time for post-hearing 
briefs and the initial determination will be due on September 8, 1995.
    This order will be published in the Federal Register as required by 
19 U.S.C. 1337(e)(2).

    Issued: May 23, 1995.
Janet D. Saxon,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 95-13144 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:15-CV-144-PPS-SLC

)

THE PAPER OF WABASH COUNTY, )

INC., ASHLEY FLYNN, )

CHRISTOPHER HAWLEY MARTIN, )

and GARY W. HALL, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff American Family Mutual Insurance Company filed a complaint against

Defendants on June 10, 2015, alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 7). The complaint recites that “[a]t all times relevant herein,” Plaintiff was

a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in Wisconsin; Defendant The Paper

of Wabash County, Inc., was an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in

Indiana; Defendant Ashley Flynn was a citizen of Indiana; Defendant Christopher Martin was a

citizen of Indiana; and Defendant Gary Hall “is believed to have been” a citizen of Indiana. (DE

7 at ¶¶ 1-5).

Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations are inadequate in two respects. First, “[a]llegations

of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of information and belief,

only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1057 n.1 (S.D. Ill. 2006)

(citing Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992));

Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D.
Ill. Oct. 28, 2004); Hayes v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003 WL 187411, at

*2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003). Therefore, Plaintiff’s “belie[f]” that Defendant Hall is a citizen of

Indiana is insufficient. 

Second, for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, each party’s citizenship must

be articulated as of “the time of the filing of the complaint,” rather than the date the claims are

alleged to have arisen or some other time material to the lawsuit. Multi-M Int’l, Inc. v. Paige

Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Here, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is

articulating each party’s citizenship as of the date of the filing of the complaint.

Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement the record on or before June 25, 2015,

by filing an amended complaint that adequately alleges the citizenship of each party.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 11th day of June, 2015.

s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
VITRO, S.A.B. de C.V., et al., petitioners, v. AD HOC GROUP OF VITRO NOTEHOLDERS, et al.

No. 12-1177, R46-015.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2013.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1895 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Iprodione. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Iprodione. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IPRODIONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.51 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

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

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

9 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

10 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
# L_2008060EN.01002601.xml

| 5.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 60/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 60/26

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 February 2008

on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay on certain aspects of air services

(2008/192/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2), in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence of the first subparagraph, and Article 300(3), first subparagraph,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | By a decision of 5 June 2003 the Council has authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements by a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By a decision of 5 June 2003 the Council has authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements by a Community agreement.

| (2) | The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an agreement with the Eastern Republic of Uruguay on certain aspects of air services in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Decision of 5 June 2003. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an agreement with the Eastern Republic of Uruguay on certain aspects of air services in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Decision of 5 June 2003.

| (3) | The Agreement has been signed on behalf of the Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2006/848/EC (2). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement has been signed on behalf of the Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2006/848/EC (2).

| (4) | The Agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

Article 2

The President of the Council is authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided in Article 9(1) of the Agreement.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2008.

For the Council

The President

D. RUPEL

---

(1)  Opinion of 12 October 2006 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 330, 28.11.2006, p. 18.

2

---