alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Bodyguard Records.com, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              138 Fulton Street
                                                              New York, NY 10038
                                                              (212) 751-2179
February 1, 2001

James T. Patten
P.O. Box 682
Bernardsville, NJ 07924

Re: Amendment to Loan Agreements

Dear Mr. Patten:

This will serve to confirm our prior  conversations and negotiations  concerning
the  parameters  of an  amendment  to the July 5, 2000,  September  29, 2000 and
November 6, 2000, loan agreements and the annexed $10,000,  $15,000 and $15,000,
respective,  12%  promissory  notes of even  date  therewith  (collectively  the
"Agreements'),  executed by Bodyguard Records.com,  Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the  "Company")  and payable to the order of James T. Patten  ("JTP").  In this
regard, and in consideration of the mutual benefit derived herefrom, the receipt
and adequacy of which is hereby jointly and severally acknowledged and accepted,
we hereby agree as follows:

1.   Amendment.  The  Agreements  are hereby  amended to extend the Due Date (as
     that term is defined in the  Agreements)  until the sooner of July 31, 2001
     or the closing date of the  Company's  initial  public  offering  under and
     pursuant to Form SB-2 Registration Statement No. 333-40444.

2.   Confirmation of Agreements.  Except as herein modified, the Company and JTP
     hereby reconfirm the validity and enforceability of the Agreements.

If the foregoing  correctly sets forth our agreement and  understanding,  please
indicate your  acceptance by signing the enclosed copy of this letter  agreement
in the space marked  "Agreed to and Accepted" and returning the signed  document
to the undersigned via facsimile.

Very truly yours

Bodyguard Records.com, Inc.


By: /s/John Rollo
    -------------
    John Rollo, President


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:


/s/ James T. Patten
-------------------
James T. Patten

JR:nas
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5772 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5772

 To limit the moratorium on certain permitting and drilling activities 
    issued by the Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2010

  Mr. Olson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To limit the moratorium on certain permitting and drilling activities 
    issued by the Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN PERMITTING AND DRILLING 
              ACTIVITIES.

    (a) In General.--The moratorium set forth in the decision 
memorandum of the Secretary of the Interior entitled ``Decision 
memorandum regarding the suspension of certain offshore permitting and 
drilling activities on the Outer Continental Shelf'' and dated July 12, 
2010, and any suspension of operations issued in connection with the 
moratorium, shall not apply to an applicant for a permit to drill if 
the Secretary determines that the applicant--
            (1) has complied with the notice entitled ``National Notice 
        to Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas Leases, Outer 
        Continental Shelf (OCS)'' dated June 8, 2010 (NTL No. 2010-N05) 
        and the notice entitled ``National Notice to Lessees and 
        Operators of Federal Oil and Gas Leases, Outer Continental 
        Shelf (OCS)'' dated June 18, 2010 (NTL No. 2010-N06); and
            (2) has completed all required safety inspections.
    (b) Determination on Permit.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
on which the Secretary makes a determination that an applicant has 
complied with paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), the Secretary 
shall make a determination on whether to issue the permit.
                                 <all>
```
## S IMONE 

## M

. 

## W RIGHT

, 

## CSR

**C E R T I F I E D C O U R T R E P O R T E R**

368th District Court

405 Martin Luther King, Box 8 simonewrightcourtreporter@gmail.com

Georgetown, Texas 78626 Ph. (512) 943

- 1280

October 2 4 , 2015

MR. JEFFREY D. KYLE

Court of Appeals

Third District of Texas

P.O. Box 12547

Austin , Texas 78711

- 2547

(512) 463

- 1733

Re: Court of Appeals No. 03

- 15

- 00469

- CR

Trial Court Case No. 12

- 0702

- K277

James Michael Reser vs. The S t ate of Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle

,

Due to formatting problems , e nclosed please find the hard copies of State’s Exhibit s No s. 41, 42,

105, 106

, and 123, which were marked in the trial of the abov e

- mentioned cause. The exhibit

volume sent via the TAMES portal included all exhibits except these five CDs /DVDs

. Please file these exhibits with the appropriate case.

If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to ask

. If you wouldn’t mind, please confirm receipt to the email address listed in the header above.

Thank you very much,

Simone M. Wright

Certified Court Reporter

Job No. 169
#### BARNARD v. GANTZ et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Action by John T. Barnard, as temporary administrator, etc., of Ann E. Crouse, against John F. Gantz and others.

Argued before BROWN, P. J, and DYKMAN and CULLEN. JJ.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. See 21 N. Y. Supp. 349; 23 N. Y. Supp. 260.
#### State of Nebraska, appellant, v. John M. Roe, appellee.

646 N.W.2d 264

Filed June 28, 2002.

No. S-00-1130.

Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and William L. Howland for appellant.

Robert Wm. Chapin, Jr., for appellee.

Hendry, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, McCormack, and Miller-Lerman, JJ.

Wright, J.

This appeal arises from an order granting a petition to set aside a conviction pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2264 (Cum. Supp. 2000). The Lancaster County District Court granted the petition, finding that § 29-2264 does not violate Neb. Const, art. II, § 1. The State appeals.

John M. Roe filed a petition to set aside his conviction on May 30, 2000, at which time he had completed all terms and conditions of probation related to a 1989 conviction for felony possession of a controlled substance. The State filed an answer raising the issue of the constitutionality of § 29-2264. At the hearing on Roe’s petition, the State argued that § 29-2264 “is an unconstitutional delegation of the executive pardon power to the judiciary.” The district court found the State’s argument to be without merit and issued an order setting aside Roe’s conviction.

The issues raised in this appeal are identical to those in *State*v. *Spady, ante*p. 99, 645 N.W.2d 539 (2002), and *State*v. *Leanna, ante*p. 114, 646 N.W.2d 263 (2002). In Spady, we concluded that § 29-2264 is constitutional and is not in violation of article II, § 1. For the reasons set forth in *Spady,*the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant

vs.

EMANUEL LEE,

Respondent.

_________________________________

Docket Number 2023-0376

Enforcement Activity No. 7799412

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: December 21, 2023

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Timothy G. Stueve

Appearances:

Jennifer Simpson

Sector Charleston

For the Coast Guard

Emanuel Lee, Pro Se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about December 6, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval 

of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and 

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated December 21, 2023, at

Alameda, California

 

_____________________

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-0015

_____________________________

BRUCE MCCRAY,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction.

May 28, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Baker 

v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004). Petitioner is warned that any 

future filings that this Court determines to be frivolous may result 

in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any 

further pro se filings in this Court and a referral to the appropriate 

institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 

944.279, Florida Statutes (2018) (providing that a prisoner who is 

found by a court to have brought a frivolous or malicious suit, 

action, claim, proceeding, or appeal is subject to disciplinary 

procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of 

Corrections).

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Bruce McCray, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
EXHIBIT 32(a)


 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Jeffry N. Quinn, Chief Executive Officer of Solutia Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                  quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (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.

Dated: April 29, 2005

                                             /s/ Jeffry N. Quinn
                                             -------------------
                                             Jeffry N. Quinn
                                             Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Solutia Inc.
and will be retained by Solutia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




                                     42
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-11196

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID HENRY CAFFEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CR-117-Y(1)

__________________________________________

October 28, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Henry Caffey appeals his convictions for attempt to possess with intent to distribute

marijuana and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) & 846. Caffey contends that the evidence was insufficient to support either

conviction. Caffey also contends that the district court committed reversible error by failing to
order a psychiatric examination of Caffey to determine his competency to stand trial, or in the

alternative, to conduct a hearing to determine Caffey’s competence and that the district court

committed reversible error by sustaining the Government’s objection to Caffey’s crossexamination of Donald McCommons regarding McCommons’ pending state felony indictment for

theft.

We have reviewed the record and briefs and hold that no reversible error was committed. 

The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Caffey guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

on both offenses. See United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir. 1995). Caffey’s

trial counsel’s memorandum and argument were insufficient to raise a “bona fide doubt” as to

Caffey’s competence. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to

order a psychiatric examination, or by failing to conduct a competency hearing. See United States

v. Davis, 61 F.3d 291, 304 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Caffey offered no evidence nor alleged that

the government could influence the disposition of the state court proceedings against

McCommons, the trial court did not violate Caffey’s constitutional rights by limiting his crossexamination of McCommons regarding an alleged pending state indictment. See United States v.

Thorn, 917 F.2d 170, 175-76 (5th Cir. 1990). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Jose Isabel VELASQUEZ-MURO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71392.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*701Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of The Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Isabel Velasquez-Muro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen, which introduced further evidence of hardship to his permanent resident parents and United States citizen children that did not alter the previous discretionary determination or make out a prima facie case for relief. *Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction when question presented in motion to reopen is essentially the same hardship ground originally decided).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2021504EN.01004601.xml

| 14.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 504/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 504/46

---

Report on any contingent liabilities arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council or the Commission of their tasks under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 for the 2020 financial year

(2021/C 504/19)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that its report for the 2020 financial year on any contingent liabilities arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council or the Commission of their tasks under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ Internet: http://eca.europa.eu

---
NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0263n.06 F iled: May 15, 2008 No. 07-5438 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. J OHNNYWAYNE PRI CE, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Be for e : R OG ER S, C OOK, a nd M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. PER C URI AM. In this appeal, de fenda nt challeng es the district court’s de nial of his motion to suppress evidenc e seized after defenda nt’s wife consented to a search of defe ndant’s home. The

se arc h th a t de fe nd ant c ha lle ng e s, ho we ve r, did no t yie ld e vid e nc e pe rt ine nt to de fe nd ant’ s o ff e ns e of convic tion. Accor dingly , even if this court wer e to deter

mine that t h e challeng ed sea rch w as unlawful, such a

deter mination would have no bea ringon the validity

of d ef endant’s conviction. Counsel for the de fenda

nt and the g overnme nt ag ree that t h is is the case. The appea l is therefor e dismiss ed and the case is ordere d remove d from the or al ar g ument cale ndar.
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Chinawe.com Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Vivian Chu, Chief Financial Officer of the company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Vivian Chu
Chief Financial Officer
November 19, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         4,342
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (15)
<INVENTORY>                                    2,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 359
<PP&E>                                         8,697
<DEPRECIATION>                                (3,687)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                16,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,292
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           7
<OTHER-SE>                                    12,737
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  16,182
<SALES>                                        2,404
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,404
<CGS>                                         (1,645)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (1,645)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (1,623)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (11)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (76)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (26)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (519)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (519)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Zoila L., Respondent, v Joseph S., Appellant.

— In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the putative father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Torres, J.), dated February 25, 1985, which adjudged him to be the father of the petitioner’s child, and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 4, 1985, which, upon the adjudication that he was the father of the petitioner’s child, ordered him to make support payments and certain payments for arrears.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 25, 1985 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 4, 1985 is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a new hearing and determination on the issue of support and arrears. The adjudication that the appellant is the father of the petitioner’s child is affirmed. Pending the new determination on the issue of support and arrears, the appellant shall continue to make current support payments of $37.50 per week.

The appeal from the order dated February 25, 1985 must be dismissed *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1112), but the issues raised on that appeal are brought up for review on the appeal from the dispositional order dated June 4, 1985. The hearing on the issue of paternity presented sharp issues of credibility for the court to decide. In upholding the court’s determination as to paternity we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record which, if believed, meets the clear and convincing standard necessary to prove paternity *(see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs, v Philip De G.,*59 NY2d 137). In addition, the court properly considered the weight to be given the human leucocyte antigen blood tissue test which indicated a high degree of probability that the appellant is the father of the child.

*571Because of the inadequacy of the hearing record, it is not possible for this court to review the Hearing Examiner’s report, adopted by the Family Court, to determine whether the findings on the issues of support and arrears are contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing solely on those issues. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.