alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROBERT W. MILLER, §

§ No. 546, 2017

Petitioner Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court of the 

§ State of Delaware

v. §

§ C.A. No. N17M-11-154

KOLAWOLE O. AKINBAYO, §

WARDEN, H.R.Y.C.I, §

§

Respondent Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: March 16, 2018

Decided: May 21, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices

O R D E R

(1) The appellant, Robert W. Miller, filed this appeal from the Superior 

Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellee, State of 

Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it 

is manifest on the face of Miller’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.

(2) In 2015, Miller pleaded guilty to a felony offense and was sentenced to 

eight years of Level V incarceration followed by six months of Level IV 

supervision.1 We affirmed Miller’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal.

2

 

 

1

State v. Miller, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1412002671 (N).

2 Miller v. State, 2016 WL 3410306 (Del. May 18, 2016).
2

Thereafter, we dismissed Miller’s appeal from the denial of his first motion for 

postconviction relief.3 Miller did not appeal the denial of his second postconviction 

motion.

(3) On November 22, 2017, Miller filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus and a supporting memorandum. By order dated November 27, 2017 the 

Superior Court denied the petition after determining that Miller’s commitment was 

regular on its face, and that he was not being illegally detained. This appeal 

followed. 

(4) When a prisoner’s commitment is regular on its face, there can be no 

relief through habeas corpus.4 Miller pleaded guilty to a felony offense; his 

commitment to serve a sentence for the conviction is valid on its face. Because 

Miller is being held under a valid commitment, the Superior Court correctly 

determined that his petition and supporting memorandum did not support the 

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 

GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

3 Miller v. State, 2017 WL 568362 (Del. Feb. 9, 2017).

4 Hall v. Carr, 692 A.2d 888, 891 (Del. 1997) (quoting 10 Del. C. § 6902(1)).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-02-1999
<CASH>                                         30,853
<SECURITIES>                                    8,119
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                      206
<INVENTORY>                                     1,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               55,434
<PP&E>                                        891,543
<DEPRECIATION>                                205,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                876,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          71,326
<BONDS>                                       755,741
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           63
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  876,459
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               83,595
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  30,935 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               38,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             14,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (358)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (30)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (388)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (35)
<CHANGES>                                       (515) 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (938)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01010701.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/107 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/107

---

(2004/C 88 E/0112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2615/03

by Philip Claeys (Nl) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   New responsibilities for Commissioner Verheugen

Subject:

Commissioner Günther Verheugen is being given a new area of responsibility. His duties will now include relations with the EU's new neighbouring states, namely Russia, Ukraine, Israel and Morocco. This was formerly the responsibility of the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten.

Why has this area of responsibility been transferred from Commissioner Patten to Commissioner Verheugen?

Does the Commission also intend to combine relations with other neighbouring states under the heading of ‘enlargement’ rather than external relations?

Does the Commission not fear that placing relations with the above countries under the aegis of Commissioner Verheugen, who is generally known as having special responsibility for EU enlargement, could raise misplaced expectations among the countries concerned? Such a step may give the impression that they, too, might qualify for accession to the EU. In what terms were the countries concerned informed of Commissioner Verheugen's new responsibilities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

(23 September 2003)

Following the conclusion of accession negotiations with ten Acceding States at Copenhagen in December 2002, the Commission has set out an ambitious vision for upgrading political and economic relations with the Eastern and Southern neighbours of the enlarged Union (1). This was welcomed by the Council, as well as by the European Council in Thessaloniki in June 2003. On 9 July 2003, the Commission decided on internal arrangements for its work in this regard. Relations with all countries neighbouring the enlarged Union remain the responsibility of the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations. The Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement will lead the Commission's work on Wider Europe, and provide political guidance to a task force consisting of officials from the Directorates-General for External Relations and Enlargement. This will ensure the Union's contribution to the creation of an area of shared prosperity and stability around the enlarged Union, making use of the experience the Commission has gained in assisting Acceding States to prepare for accession wherever applicable. It reflects the Commission's view that, in return for concrete progress demonstrating shared values and effective implementation of political, economic and institutional reforms, all these neighbouring countries should be offered the prospect of a stake in the Union's internal market, as well as other advanced forms of co-operation in key fields of mutual interest.

1

The countries concerned have been informed through diplomatic channels.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 104 final.

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.1

                              CONSENT OF AUDITORS
 
The Board of Directors
Premier Bancorp, Inc.
 
We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-34243) on Form S-4 of Premier Bancorp, Inc., of our report dated February
26, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Premier Bancorp, Inc.
and subsidiary as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then
ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form
10-KSB of Premier Bancorp, Inc.
 
/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
March 25, 1998
NUMBER 13-08-00319-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF Y. E. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Walter Elizondo, attempted to perfect an appeal from a “Master court’s

judgment entered on December 17, 2007.” Upon review of the documents before the

Court, it appears that there is no such order entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of

Hidalgo, County, Texas, in cause no. F-2067-01-4. It appears that the order from which

this appeal was taken is not an appealable order. 

On May 27, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1,
2

42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the

date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to correct

the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered 

and filed this the 21st day of August, 2008.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 11, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51581 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CURTIS WAYNE CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-193-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Curtis Wayne Cleveland presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001),which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-inpossession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,610
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,125
<INVENTORY>                                     22,374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,082
<PP&E>                                          10,549
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,716
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,505
<SALES>                                         51,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,053
<CGS>                                           27,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   170
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,339
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,932
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,932
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67
        



</TABLE>
Remand and Opinion Filed November 1, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00163-CV

RICHARD BROCK COMPTON, IVY CREEK INVESTMENTS, LTD., 

MINERAL POINT HOLDING CO., LLC, AND 

KAZOKU INVESTMENTS LTD., Appellants

V.

KELLY MARIE HOGLUND COMPTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-25368

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to render judgment pursuant to 

settlement agreement and either Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(A) 

or 42.1(a)(2)(B). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). Pursuant to rule 42.1(a)(2)(B), we 

grant the motion, set aside the trial court’s December 14, 2020 order without regard 
–2–

to the merits, and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in 

accordance with the parties’ agreement. See id. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

210163f.p05

/Bill Pedersen, III//

BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RICHARD BROCK COMPTON, 

IVY CREEK INVESTMENTS, 

LTD., MINERAL POINT 

HOLDING CO., LLC, AND 

KAZOKU INVESTMENTS LTD., 

Appellants

No. 05-21-00163-CV V.

KELLY MARIE HOGLUND 

COMPTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-25368.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Pedersen, III, Justices Osborne and 

Reichek participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we SET ASIDE, without 

regard to the merits, the trial court’s December 14, 2020 “Order Granting Kelly 

Compton’s Second Amended Motion to Enforce Partial Mediated Settlement 

Agreement by Appointing Third Party to Effectuate Distribution of Assets” and 

REMAND the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with 

the parties’ settlement agreement.

Subject to the parties’ agreement, we ORDER that appellee Kelly Marie 

Hoglund Compton recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Richard 

Brock Compton, Ivy Creek Investments, Ltd., Mineral Point Holding Co., LLC, and 

Kazoku Investments Ltd.

Judgment entered this 1

st day of November, 2021.
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.9



SECOND AMENDMENT TO COAL SUPPLY AGREEMENT
Between


PACIFICORP
And


WESTMORELAND KEMMERER, LLC
(f/k/a Westmoreland Kemmerer, Inc.)


For Coal Deliveries Beginning January 1, 2017


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT amends the Coal Supply Agreement dated July 1, 2010, for coal deliveries beginning January 1, 2017, as further amended (“2017 CSA”), between WESTMORELAND KEMMERER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with offices in Englewood, Colorado, formerly Westmoreland Kemmerer, Inc., and successor in interest to Chevron Mining Inc. (“Seller”), and PACIFICORP, an Oregon corporation with offices in Salt Lake City, Utah (“Buyer”).
RECITALS


		
	A.
	The Parties desire to amend Section 3.04 of the 2017 CSA at the same time they desire to amend the Coal Supply Agreement dated July 1, 1992, as amended and restated in the FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT TO COAL SUPPLY AGREEMENT, effective July 1, 2010 as further amended (“CSA”) between PACIFICORP and WESTMORELAND KEMMERER, LLC., formerly Westmoreland Kemmerer, Inc., as successor in interest to Chevron Mining Inc., as set forth in the Twentieth Amendment to CSA.




		
	B.
	Seller and Buyer intend for the Second Amendment to 2017 CSA, and the Twentieth Amendment to CSA, to become effective simultaneously.




In consideration of the mutual benefits and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged, the Parties amend the 2017 CSA as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 3.04(c) Over/Under Account as presently written shall be deleted in its entirety. As a result, Exhibit E “Over/Under Account Examples” shall also be deleted in its entirety.




		
	2.
	Except as amended herein, all other portions of the 2017 CSA are in full force and effect.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Twentieth Amendment to be executed and to become effective on June 15, 2016, which is the same date that the Second Amendment to 2017 CSA becomes effective.


WESTMORELAND KEMMERER, LLC        PACIFICORP


By: _/s/ Scott Sturm                                         By: _/s/ Dana Ralston_____________


Its: __VP, Sales & Marketing                         Its: __VP COAL GEN & MINING___


Date signed: ___6/14/2016                             Date signed: ______6/15/2016______




1
Letter Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.6

 CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT 
 ita Software 
  

					
		 		  	 141 Portland Street

Suite 700
 Cambridge, MA
02139


 Tel: 617.714.2100 
 Fax: 617.621.3913 
 March 11, 2008 

Keith Melnick 
 Kayak Software
Corporation/Sidestep, Inc. 
 27 Ann Street 
 Norwalk, CT 06854 
 Re: Merger of Sidestep Inc. with Kayak Software Corp.

 Dear Keith, 
 Reference is made
to that certain Services Agreement dated August 2, 2005, as amended (the “SideStep Agreement”), between ITA Software, Inc. (“ITA”) and SideStep Inc. (“SideStep”), and to that certain Services Agreement dated
March 3, 3005, as amended (the “Kayak Agreement”), between ITA and Kayak Software Corporation (“Kayak”). 
 This letter
will confirm that as a result of a merger, SideStep became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kayak on or about December 21, 2007. Consequently, as of January 5, 2008, all Queries previously submitted to ITA from the SideStep System (as defined
in the SideStep Agreement) pursuant to the SideStep Agreement, are now submitted to ITA by Kayak. Accordingly, Kayak and ITA hereby agree as follows: 
 As of February 1, 2008: 
 1. The definition of Site in the Kayak Agreement is
amended to include sidestep.com; and 
 2. The SideStep Agreement is terminated by mutual consent of the parties. 

In accordance with the foregoing, the []* Execution Units employed by ITA for the benefit of SideStep as of the date hereof will be repurposed to the
Kayak server farm, and Kayak shall assume responsibility for payment for such Execution Units pursuant to Section 6.3.1 of Exhibit B to the Kayak Agreement. 
 Please indicate your acceptance of the foregoing by countersigning below. 

www.itasoftware.com 

  
 * CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED. OMITTED PORTIONS FILED WITH THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 406 PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED. 








  
 ita Software

  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 /s/ Jeremy Wertheimer

	
	 Jeremy Wertheimer

	 President

	 ITA Software, Inc.




Accepted and approved: 
  

	
	 /s/ Steve Hafner

	Steve Hafner
	President and CEO
	Kayak Software Corporation
	SideStep, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Kayak)

 www.itasoftware.com 

  
 * CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED. OMITTED PORTIONS FILED WITH THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 406 PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11116

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERIC DEVON MATHIS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-117-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eric Devon Mathis

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mathis has filed a response. The record is

insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Mathis’s claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on

direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11116

2

opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.”

UnitedStates v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)(internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s

brief, and Mathis’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Robert Lee DOTSON v. Robert S. DAVIS.

No. 205P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Tamara DiVenere, Jeffrey J. Walker, Wilkesboro, for Dotson.

William Lipscomb, for Davis.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd day of May 2008 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
|LSB FINANCIAL CORP.EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|(Dollars in thousands)                                         
|                                                               
|                                                               
|                                                               
|                                                               
|                                                               
|Basic EPS                                                      
|Income available to common shareholders                        
|                                                               
|Effect of dilutive securities                                  
|Options                                                        
|                                                               
|Diluted EPS                                                    
|Income available to common shareholders                        
|                                                               
|                                                               
|                                                               
|                                                               
|                                                               
|Basic EPS                                                      
|Income available to common shareholders                        
|                                                               
|Effect of dilutive securities                                  
|Options                                                        
|                                                               
|Diluted EPS                                                    
|Income available to common shareholders