alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 3

- 0 0 357

- C V

Style: Talisman Energy USA Inc. and Statoil Texas Onshore Properties, LLC

v Enduring Resources, LLC

Date s motion s filed * : June 13 , 201 3 and June 27, 2013

Type of motion: Motion to extend time to file reporter’s record and Motion for extension of time to file

reporter’s record

Party filing motion: Appellant and Court Reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: May 30, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 0 Current Due date: May 30, 2013

Date Requested: July 1, 2013 and June 27, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: June 27, 2013

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

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

 Other: _____________________________________

On June 13, 2013, appellants filed a motion informing the Court that they had requested the reporter’s

record be prepared and had paid for its preparation, and they requested that we extend the time to file

the record to July 1, 2013. On June 27, 2013, the court reporter filed both the record and a request that

we extend the deadline for filing the record to June 27, 2013. We grant both motions and order the Clerk

of this Court to accept the record. Appellants’ brief will be due no later than July 29, 2013. See T EX

. R

.

A PP

. P . 4.1(a), 38.6(a).

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Court

Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: July 2, 2013
_____________ No. 95-4209WM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Jesus Montalvo-Rodriguez, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: June 12, 1996 Filed: June 21, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
Jesu s Montalvo-Rodriguez appeals the 151-month sentence imposed by the district court after Montalvo-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine base and cocaine powder. The Government did not fil e a substantial assistance motion, and Montalvo-Rodriguez failed to make a su bstantial threshold showing the Government improperly withheld th e motion. On appeal, c ounsel filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In the Anders brief, counsel s uggests the district court improperly failed to depart downward below the a pplicable sentencing range and the mandatory statutory minimum. Montalvo-Rodriguez's argument i s foreclosed by our holding in United States v. Kelly , 18 F.3d 612, 617-18 (8th Cir. 1994). Having carefully reviewed the record for any othe r nonfriv olous issues, we find none. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 8 0 (1988). We thus affirm the district court.

### -2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>


County Seat Stores, Inc. and Subsidiary                          EXHIBIT 11.1
Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
(Amounts in Thousands Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         13 Weeks
                                                           Ended
                                                           May 2,
                                                           1998
                                                        ----------
<S>                                                      <C>      
BASIC
Net loss                                                 $ (9,115)
                                                        ----------
                                                        ----------

Weighted average shares outstanding                        20,000
                                                        ----------
                                                        ----------

Loss per common share, basic                             $  (0.46)
                                                        ----------
                                                        ----------




DILUTED
Net loss                                                 $ (9,115)
                                                        ----------
                                                        ----------

Weighted average shares outstanding                        20,000
Add assumed exercise of options reduced by the number
 of shares purchased with the proceeds                      2,851
                                                        ----------
Total shares                                               22,851
                                                        ----------
                                                        ----------

Loss per common share, diluted                           $  (0.40)
                                                        ----------
                                                        ----------
</TABLE>
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
				EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

		THIS AGREEMENT made on the 12th day of February, 1999, by
and between Kentucky Electric Steel, Inc. (the "Company"), and William
H. Gerak (the "Executive").

					WITNESSETH :

	WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive executed an Employment
Agreement effective as of June 7, 1994 (the "Agreement"); and

	WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to change the
definition of the term "Change of Control":

	NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is amended as follows:

	1. Paragraph  III.B.3 is revised to read as follows:

	3.	The term "Change of Control" shall mean (i) the
consummation of (A) any consolidation or merger of the Company in which
the Company is not the continuing or surviving corporation or pursuant
to which shares of the Company's Common Stock would be converted into
cash, securities or other property, other than a merger of the Company
in which the holders of the Company's Common Stock immediately prior to
the merger have substantially the same proportionate ownership of
common stock of the surviving corporation immediately after the merger,
or (B) any sale, lease, exchange or transfer (in one transaction or a
series of related transactions) of all or substantially all the assets
of the Company, or (ii) the approval by the shareholders of the Company
of any plan or proposal for the liquidation or dissolution of the
Company, other than in connection with a bankruptcy or reorganization
proceeding of the Company under applicable federal or state bankruptcy
laws, or (iii) any "person" (as such term is used in Sections 13(d) and
14(d)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), other than the Company or a subsidiary thereof or any
employee benefit plan sponsored by the Company or a subsidiary thereof,
becoming the beneficial owner (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 under
the Exchange Act) of securities of the Company representing 25% or more
of the combined voting power of the Company's then outstanding
securities ordinarily (and apart from rights accruing in special
circumstances) having the right to vote in the election of directors,
as a result of a tender or exchange offer, open market purchases,
privately-negotiated purchases or otherwise, or (iv) at any time during
a period of two (2) consecutive years, individuals who at the beginning
of such period constituted the Board of Directors of the Company
ceasing for any reason to constitute at least a majority thereof,
unless the election or the nomination for election by the Company's
shareholders of each new director during such two-year period was
approved by a vote of at least two-thirds of the directors then still
in office who were directors at the beginning of such two-year period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Amendment on this 12th
day of February, 1999.

					KENTUCKY ELECTRIC STEEL, INC.

				    By: /s/  Charles C. Hanebuth

	              	        /s/  William H. Gerak

/s/  William J. Jessie
WITNESS
Michael JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8985.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Saundra TAYLOR, petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES.

No. 18-8062.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Russell FREY, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 18-9120.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District denied.
Oniel Winston SCARLETT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8458.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Sazar DENT, aka Cesar Augusto Jimenez-Mendez, petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General.

No. 18-7819.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1665 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1665

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land for addition 
to the Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia, as previously authorized by 
          law, by purchase or exchange as well as by donation.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1665

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land for addition 
to the Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia, as previously authorized by 
          law, by purchase or exchange as well as by donation.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITION TO WILDERNESS BATTLEFIELD, VIRGINIA.

    (a) Removal of Condition on Battlefield Addition.--Section 2(a)(2) 
of Public Law 102-541 (16 U.S.C. 425k note; 106 Stat. 3565) is amended 
by striking ``: Provided,'' and all that follows through ``Interior''.
    (b) Authorized Methods of Acquisition.--
            (1) Limitations on acquisition methods.--Section 3(a) of 
        Public Law 101-214 (16 U.S.C. 425l(a)) is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting 
                ``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
                Secretary''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following new 
                paragraph:
    ``(2) The lands designated `P04-04' on the map referred to in 
section 2(a) numbered 326-40072E/89/A and dated September 1990 may be 
acquired only by donation, and the lands designated `P04-01', `P04-02', 
and `P04-03' on such map may be acquired only by donation, purchase 
from willing sellers, or exchange.''.
            (2) Removal of restriction on acquisition of addition.--
        Section 2 of Public Law 102-541 (16 U.S.C. 425k note; 106 Stat. 
        3565) is amended by striking subsection (b).
    (c) Technical Correction.--Section 2(a) of Public Law 101-214 (16 
U.S.C. 425k(a)) is amended by striking ``Spotslyvania'' and inserting 
``Spotsylvania''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 12, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 99.2

Certification of Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to Rule 13a-14 Or 15d-14 of The Exchange Act,  As Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002

I,
Alain Bouchard, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of ALIMENTATION COUCHE-TARD INC., certify that:

|DATED the 21st day of July, 2005. |                                                                                                          
|--------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                  | /s/ALAIN BOUCHARDName: Alain Bouchard
Title: Chairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION FURNISHED

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 on Form 10-Q
for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) filed by The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (the Company) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Ira J. Lamel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                            
|----------------------------
|Date: February 9, 2010      
|                            
|/s/ Ira J. Lamel            
|Ira J. Lamel                
|Executive Vice President and
|Chief Financial Officer     

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Denied and Opinion Filed October 21, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-01219-CV IN RE ALFRED LEE STONE, Relator Original Proceeding from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-91-42452 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Francis Relator files this petition for writ of mandamus asking the Court to order the trial court to rule on four post-conviction motions purportedly filed on November 1, 2014 and to withdraw an order admitting certain e xpert testimony into eviden ce at relator’s 1991 trial. To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, relator must show the trial court violated a ministerial duty an d no adequate remedy at law exists. In re State ex rel. Weeks , 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). Furt her, as the party seeking relief, relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to relief. Lizcano v. Chatham , 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The mandamus record before us does not include a certified or sworn copy of the trial court’s docket sheet or other proof es tablishing relator filed the motions for which he seeks orders and showing the trial c ourt failed to rule on the motions. T EX
. R. A PP
. P.–2– 52.3(k)(1)(a); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a). Absent such a record, we cannot conduct a meaningful review of relator’s claims. Lizcano , 416 S.W.3d at 863 (Alcala, J. concurring). As for the request that we order the trial court to reverse an order admitting evidence at the 1991 trial, we lack jurisdiction under arti cle 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.07 (West 2015); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus as to the request that we order the trial court to rule and DISMISS the petition for writ of mandamu s for want of jurisdiction as to the request that we order th e trial court to wit hdraw the order admitti ng expert testimony at trial.

161219F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

 

No. 95-50039 

Summary Calendar

 

 

ARTHUR X. CARSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE-PAROLE DIVISION,

ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(CA 94 A 205)

 

June 29, 1995

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* 

Arthur X. Carson, a Texas state prisoner, appeals pro se the

district court's dismissal with prejudice of his civil rights suit

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm for the following

reasons:

First, Carson cannot bring his § 1983 action complaining of

parole proceedings because the action he challenges has not been
 

1 McGrew v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158,

160-61 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).

 

2 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).

 

3 See Colvin v. Estelle, 506 F.2d 747, 748 (5th Cir. 1975).

 

4 Carson v. Kent, No. 93-5462 (5th Cir. May 25, 1994)

(unpublished). In that opinion, we noted that Carson had filed

at least eight other suits in this Court in the past three years.

invalidated by a state court or "called into question by a federal

court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254."1

The defendants demonstrated that the parole board denied Carson's

release on parole for legitimate reasons and Carson has asserted

bare conclusions and no facts which would give rise to an inference

of retaliation. 

Second, to the extent that Carson seeks injunctive relief for

the alleged retaliation against him in his parole proceedings, he

is seeking habeas relief and has failed to exhaust his state

remedies.2 However, modifying the district court's judgment to be

without prejudice would constitute a "waste of judicial resources"3

because Carson has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact

exists regarding his retaliation claims.

Third, the district court's averment that it had undertaken de

novo review of the entire record is sufficient to indicate that it

conducted such a review. Finally, we have previously warned Carson

that "future frivolous, unmeritorious litigation will subject him

to sanctions."4 We now find that Carson's appeal is frivolous and

impose sanctions in the amount of $50 against him and prohibit him

from filing any action or appeal in any court in this circuit until

he has satisfied the sanction. 
AFFIRMED. Sanctions imposed.
Robert L. MOORE, petitioner, v. Noah NAGY, Warden.

No. 18-8788.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Peter P. MITRANO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 18-958.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27663-27664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09892]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its 
intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The 
purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The 
agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation 
may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The 
majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 2415 Eisenhower 
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314
    These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being 
reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, 
including technical

[[Page 27664]]

information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are 
exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the 
Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each 
meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an 
individual basis in the Federal Register. NSF intends to publish a 
notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of 
the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the 
proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on 
changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF website: 
https://www.nsf.gov/events/. This information may also be requested by 
telephoning, 703/292-8687.

    Dated: May 4, 2022.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-09892 Filed 5-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit
13.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES−OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of CHINA HELI RESOURCE RENEWABLE INCORPORATED
(the "Company") on Form 20−F for transition period ending December 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, FAN Di, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial 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.





Dated:
July 15, 2010








/s/            
FAN
Di


Name:      FAN
Di


Title:        Chief
Executive Officer and


Acting Chief Financial
Officer