alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Matthew P. Clifton, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Holly Energy Partners, L.P;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report on Form10-Q that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: May 2, 2008 /s/ Matthew P. Clifton   Matthew P. Clifton   Chairman of the Board and
* 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. 96-30475 Summary Calendar

CARL BLAKE RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus EDDIE CAMESE; AUDREY AGUSTUS, incorrectly identified as “Audrie Agustus”; ORBIN TINSON, incorrectly identified as “Orbin Tinsen,” Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-3679

- - - - - - - - - - March 28, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Carl Riley, Louisiana prisoner #262968, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Riley contends that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm the dismissal of Riley’s complaint for essentially the reasons adopted by the district court. See Riley v. Camese , No. 94-3679No. 96-30475 - 2 - (E.D. La. Apr. 8, 1996). Riley’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 94-5930

WILLIAM A. BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-94-2)

Submitted: March 21, 1996

Decided: April 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John D. Delgado, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Preston

Strom, Jr., United States Attorney, Beth Caldwell, Assistant United

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William A. Brown appeals his conviction and sentence on a guilty

plea on a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of

18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West Supp. 1995). Brown's attorney has filed

a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

asserting that the judge erred in sentencing Brown to the "maximum"

allowable under the guidelines, but concluding that there were no

meritorious grounds for appeal. Brown was notified of his right to file

an additional brief, which he did, claiming violations of his constitutional rights due to: (1) his alleged failure to receive a warrant or

indictment on the charged offense; (2) the district court's allegedly

erroneous application of the sentencing guidelines; and (3) his dual

convictions in state and federal court for the same offense.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined

the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We find

that Brown's guideline range was properly calculated pursuant to the

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual. As such,

the district judge's imposition of a sentence within that range does not

state an appealable question under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742 (West 1985 &

Supp. 1995). See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir.

1990). In addition, we find the additional issues Brown raised in his

supplemental brief to be without merit.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

move in this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 45 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 45

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health 
care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation 
                              Act of 2010.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PPACA AND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE 
              HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

    (a) PPACA.--Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), such Act is repealed, and 
the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or 
revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
    (b) Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010.--Effective as of the enactment of the 
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-
152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and 
the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, 
respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had 
not been enacted.

SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
Representatives, as long as such statement has been submitted prior to 
the vote on passage of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 16, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                H. R. 45

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health 
care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation 
                              Act of 2010.
```
SCWC

- 1 9

- 0000 7 79

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I,

Respondent/ Plaintiff

- Appellant/Cross

- Appellee

,

vs.

GREGORY TARTAMELLA

, Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 1 9

- 0000 7 79 ; CASE NO. 1CPC

- 17

- 0001 682 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins

, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant /Cross

- Appellant Gregory

Tartamella ’s Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on

December 8 , 2021, is rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i

, January 12 , 202 2

.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-19-0000779

12-JAN-2022

08:49 AM

Dkt. 3 ODAC
ex10-17.htm


EXHIBIT 10.17


 




PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 



	$100,000.00	April 12, 2013





                                                                                                                         




For value received, Guardian 8 Holdings, a Nevada corporation (the “Maker”) promised to pay to C. Stephen Cochennet, or its registered assigns or successors in interest (the “Holder”) the Principal Amount and Interest (both as defined below) in the manner and upon the terms and conditions as set forth in that Term Note (“Note”) in the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), dated November 13, 2012, as extended on February 12, 2013, which Note became due and payable on or about April 12, 2013.


 


By execution by the parties herein, this Promissory Note Extension Agreement extends the Maturity Date of the Note to and including June 12, 2013. All terms and conditions of the Note shall remain the same other than the Maturity Date.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker and Holder have caused this Promissory Note Extension Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.


 


 


 


“Maker”


Guardian 8 Holdings


a Nevada corporation


 


 


 


By: /s/ Kathleen Hanrahan                                                                


                                                                                                Kathleen Hanrahan, Chief Financial Officer


 


“Holder”




 








 


/s/ C. Stephen Cochennet                                                                


C. Stephen Cochennet
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Nos. 95-2151, 95-2258.

Non-Argument Calendars.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Michael A. HOFIERKA, Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Ronald Carl ANDREWS, a/k/a "Barracuda", Defendant-Appellant.

Aug. 28, 1996.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida (Nos. 93-67-CR-J-20, 88-60-Cr-J-20); Harvey E.

Schlesinger, Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Upon consideration of the appellants' petition for panel

rehearing, the same is granted; and the opinion filed in this case

on May 16, 1996, and published at 83 F.3d 357, is modified in one

respect. Footnote 7 of the opinion is deleted.

In all other respects, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Batista, Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 355]

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered January 7, 2000, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 *532US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### Frederick McCRAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 3D03-824, 3D02-3433.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 2, 2003.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Billie Jan Goldstein, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General and Jason Helfant, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and RAMIREZ, J., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

We find no error in the determination that the defendant violated the terms of his community control order and therefore affirm the resulting convictions. As to the sentence, the record shows that the trial judge rejected recommendations from the prosecution and community control officer for more lenient treatment and instead *222imposed a sentence of three years in state prison under the Y.O.A. because he said, he had warned McCray about the severe consequences of his violating his community control when it was imposed, and felt obliged to “keep [his] word.” The transcript of the earlier proceeding reveals, however, that no such warning was given. In these circumstances, in which it appears that the sentence actually imposed resulted from a misapprehension of fact, we deem it appropriate to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in the light of this conclusion and other pertinent circumstances. *See Scott v. State,*484 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); cf. *Royster v. State,*691 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); *Smith v. State,*664 So.2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); *Vezina v. State,*644 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CURTIS W. MEWBOURNE / CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350



I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P.
(the Registrant), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of that section.



I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Curtis W. MewbourneName:

Curtis W. MewbourneDate:

August 15, 2005
STATE v. Stephanie BRIDGES

70P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Mr. Durwin P. Jones, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Andrew Nelson, Attorney at Law, for Bridges, Stephanie

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of April 2018 by State of NC to Deem Its Response as Timely Filed:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #10205 and #10206]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1607-DR), dated 09/24/2005. *Incident:*
                         Hurricane Rita. *Incident Period:*
                         09/23/2005 and continuing. *Effective Date:*
                         09/24/2005. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/23/2005. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/26/2006.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/24/2005, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Parishes:* Beauregard, Calcasieu, Cameron, Jefferson Davis, and Vermilion. *Contiguous Parishes/Counties:**Louisiana:* Acadia, Allen, Evangeline, Iberia, Lafayette, and Vernon. 
                    *Texas:*
                     Jefferson, Newton, and Orange. The Interest Rates are: PercentHomeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere:
5.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
2.687Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere:
6.557Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere:
4.750Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 102058 and for economic injury is 102060. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 05-19835 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
##### 



Holly Energy Partners, L.P.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings
To Fixed Charges
 Nine MonthsEndedSeptember
    
    
    Years Ended December 31,30, 2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001Earnings:Net income
    
    $
    17,884
    
    
    $
    26,816
    
    
    $
    32,494
    
    
    $
    581
    
    
    $
    2,670
    
    
    $
    2,423Minority interest in consolidated subsidiary
    
    
    235
    
    
    
    740
    
    
    
    1,994
    
    
    
    758
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Income from equity investee
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (894
    )
    
    
    (2,737
    )
    
    
    (2,284
    )18,119
    
    
    
    27,556
    
    
    
    34,488
    
    
    
    445
    
    
    
    (67
    )
    
    
    139Add:Total fixed charges (per below)
    
    
    11,032
    
    
    
    11,324
    
    
    
    2,279
    
    
    
    1,665
    
    
    
    1,657
    
    
    
    1,625Distributed income of equity investee
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,487
    
    
    
    1,243Total earnings
    
    $
    29,151
    
    
    $
    38,880
    
    
    $
    36,767
    
    
    $
    2,110
    
    
    $
    4,077
    
    
    $
    3,007Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    9,724
    
    
    $
    9,633
    
    
    $
    697
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    Estimate of interest within rental expense(1)
    
    
    1,308
    
    
    
    1,691
    
    
    
    1,582
    
    
    
    1,665
    
    
    
    1,657
    
    
    
    1,625Total fixed charges
    
    $
    11,032
    
    
    $
    11,324
    
    
    $
    2,279
    
    
    $
    1,665
    
    
    $
    1,657
    
    
    $
    1,625Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.64
    
    
    
    3.43
    
    
    
    16.13
    
    
    
    1.27
    
    
    
    2.46
    
    
    
    1.85
 
 (1)
    
    Represents 30% of the total operating lease rental expense which is that portion deemed to
be interest.