alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Thomas K. BROCATO.

No. 2003-OB-2080.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 30, 2003.

ORDER

Considering the Joint Petition for Transfer to Disability Inactive Status filed by respondent, Thomas K. Brocato, and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that Thomas K. Bro-cato, Louisiana Bar Roll number 3482, be and he hereby is transferred to disability inactive status pending further orders of this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all disciplinary proceedings in this matter shall be deferred until such time as respondent is transferred to active status.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall comply with all requirements set forth in the joint petition for transfer to disability inactive status.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order shall be effective immediately.

/s/ Jeannette Theriot Knoll

Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana
In the MATTER OF: E.G.B., B.R.B.

No. COA18-329

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 2, 2018

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>




EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Alan L. Hoover, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Kahiki Foods, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
      and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date:  February 14, 2006

/s/ Alan L. Hoover
-----------------------------
Alan L. Hoover, President
(Principal Executive Officer)



                                       22
In the MATTER OF: T.S.P.

No. COA18-118

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 19, 2018

VACATED. REMANDED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00565-CV

In re Jason Dale Whitlock

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TOM GREEN COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Jason Dale Whitlock, an inmate appearing pro se, has filed a petition for

writ of mandamus. In the petition, Whitlock asks this Court to order the 391st District Court of

Tom Green County to rule on Whitlock’s “motion to compel for speedy chapter 59 hearing.”1

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear abuse

of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. When a motion is properly filed and 2

pending before the trial court, the act of considering and ruling on that motion is a ministerial act,

and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. However, the relator has the burden to 3

provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. To 4

This is apparently a reference to Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, 1

relating to the forfeiture of contraband. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 59.01 et seq. In the motion,

Whitlock is demanding a hearing in response to what he characterizes as “the State’s attempt to

illegally take and keep his money in the amount of $1,965.00.”

 In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). 2

 In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). 3

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Mendoza,

4

131 S.W.3d 167, 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); see Tex. R. App.

P. 52.7(a)(1).
obtain mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion, a relator must

provide a record demonstrating that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was

asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused or failed to rule on the motion within a reasonable

time. Whitlock has failed to provide such a record here. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 5 6

mandamus is denied.7

____________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Filed: October 28, 2014

 In re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding); In re 5

Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). 

See Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662; In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. 6

App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228.

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). Whitlock has also filed a motion for leave to file his petition 7

for writ of mandamus. No such leave is required. We dismiss that motion as moot. 

2
* 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. 08-30211

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KENDRICK RILEY

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-252-1

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kendrick Riley has

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

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Riley has not filed a response. Our independent

review ofthe record and counsel’s brief 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
# Official Journal C 34I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 034I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 641 February 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 034I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 641 February 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Investment Bank |
| 2021/C 34 I/01 | SIT 2021 – Call for proposals – Ideas that change the world: the EIBI’s 2021 Social Innovation Tournament | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Investment Bank

2021/C 34 I/01

SIT 2021 – Call for proposals – Ideas that change the world: the EIBI’s 2021 Social Innovation Tournament

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00181

- CR

WILLIAM JAMES AKIN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th District Court Fannin County, Texas Trial Court No. CR

- 13

- 24979

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION William James Akin was convicted by a Fannin County jury in this case of indecency with a child by sexual contact 1 and assessed punishment of twenty years’ imprisonment. This case was tried with three companion cases, which are the subject of other appeal s pending before this Court. 2 Akin filed a single, consolidated brief covering all four appeals, in which he contends that the trial court erred (1) in admitting two photographs of adult pornographic websites and two photographs

o f internet search history pages and (2) in granting the State’s challenge of a juror for cause

. The argument s raised in this appeal are based exclusively on the argument s brought before this Court in the companion appeal styled Akin v. State , cause number 06

- 14

- 00 178

- CR. In our

o pinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found that (1) although the trial court erred, there
was no reversible error in the admissio n of the complained

- of evidence and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s challe nge for cause. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, we likewise overrule Akin’s points of error as they appl y to this appeal.

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 21.11(a)(1), (c)(2) (West 2011).

2 In his companion ca u se numbers , 06

- 14

- 00178, 06

- 14

- 00179, and 06

- 14

- 00180, Akin appeals from his convictions of one count of sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact.3

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Josh R. Morriss III Chief Justice
Date Submitted: August 10, 2015 Date Decided: September 16 , 2015
Do Not Publish
STATE of North Carolina v. Ricky STATEN

No. 196P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Ricky Staten, for Staten, Ricky.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th of June 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Halifax County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of June 2018 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of June 2018 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
----

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2006/C 270/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

----
In the MATTER OF: D.C., Jr., J.C., D.C.

No. COA18-482

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 6, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 2 8 , 2015 

# Order

Clerk May 2 8 , 2015

149599 ( 100 )

BANK OF AMERICA, N

. A

. , Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 149599

v COA: 307756

Oakland CC: 2010

- 112606

- CK

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE

COMPANY, PATRIOT TITLE AGENCY, KIRK

D. SCHIEB, WESTMINSTER ABSTRACT

COMPANY, WESTMINSTER TITLE AGENCY,

INC., PRIME FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,

VALENTINO M. TRABUCCHI, PAMELA S.

NOTTURNO, f/k/a PAMELA S. SIIRA,

DOUGLAS K. SMITH, J OSHUA J. GRIGGS,

STATE VALUE APPRAISALS, LLC, NATHAN

B. HOGAN, and CHRISTINE D. MAYS,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

FRED MATSON, MICHAEL LYNETT, JO KAY

JAMES, and PAUL SMITH,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of plaintiff

- appellant to file a

supplemental authority letter is GRANTED. The supplemental authority letter submitted

on May 15, 2015, is accepted for filing.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50491

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWARDO SALVADOR RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-731-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edwardo Salvador Rodriguez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, and the 

district court sentenced him to 250 months of imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. 

Rodriguez argues that the district court erred by failing to verify at the 

sentencing hearing that he had read the presentence report, as required by 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A).

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50491 Document: 00513490884 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
No. 15-50491

2

Because Rodriguez did not object in the district court, we review his 

claim for plain error. United States v. Esparza-Gonzales, 268 F.3d 272, 274 

(5th Cir. 2001). To show plain error, Rodriguez must show a forfeited error 

that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). As Rodriguez acknowledges, he cannot 

show plain error. See Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d at 274.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50491 Document: 00513490884 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
Exhibit 10.1


 


Derma Sciences, Inc.


2013 Director Compensation Program


 


The 2013 Director Compensation Program of
Derma Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”), effective May 23, 2013, applies to the Company’s directors upon election
or appointment to the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board of Directors”).


 


General Board of Directors Service -- Equity


		·	Upon election or appointment, outside directors receive 10,000 restricted stock units. The restricted stock units shall
vest as to 25% of the grant on the first, second, third and fourth anniversaries of the grant date, so long as the grantee
remains a director of the Company.



		·	For each year of service, outside directors, except for the lead director, receive a grant of restricted stock units having
a value equal to an amount in the range of $65,000-$75,000, which shall vest on the first anniversary of the grant date, so
long as the grantee remains a director of the Company.



		·	For each year of service, the lead director shall receive a grant of restricted stock units having a value equal to an amount
in the range of $85,000-$100,000, which shall vest on the first anniversary of the grant date, so long as the grantee remains
a director of the Company.



 


General Board of Directors Service – Cash


For each year of service, each outside director also receives
a $35,000 annual cash payment, payable quarterly in equal amounts, except for the lead director, who receives a $75,000 annual
cash payment, payable quarterly in equal amounts.


 


Committee Service


		·	The chairperson of the Audit Committee, the chairperson of the Compensation Committee and the chairperson of the Nominating
and Corporate Governance Committee receive additional annual compensation of $12,000, $12,000 and $6,000, respectively, payable
quarterly in equal amounts.



		·	Each member of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receive
additional annual compensation of $4,000, $4,000 and $2,500, respectively, payable quarterly in equal amounts.



		·	In connection with special committees the Board of Directors may form from time to time in connection with various transactions
or undertakings, the Board of Directors may award compensation to the directors, in its discretion, for membership on such special
committees.



 


Discretionary Compensation


The Board of Directors may, from time to time, grant additional
merit-based cash or equity compensation to non-employee directors for extraordinary service.


 


Inside Directors


Inside directors receive no compensation for their services
as directors.


 


Expenses


All directors are reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection
with each Board of Directors and committee meeting attended.
#### H.D., Father of L.S., A Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D03-2181.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 2003.

Deborah A. Schroth, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Deborah Stafford, Assistant General Counsel, Jacksonville, Athiel S. Jones, Jacksonville, Hilda Griffis of the Guardian Ad Litem Program, Jacksonville, and Henry M. Coxe of Bedell, Dittmer and De-vault, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of June 10, 2003, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not a final order nor an appealable nonfinal order. *T.H. v. Department of Children and Families,*736 So.2d 126, 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

BOOTH, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4729 

To clarify the situations in which a corporation may be treated as a person 

under Federal law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2010 

Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to 

the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To clarify the situations in which a corporation may be 

treated as a person under Federal law. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CORPORATION AS A PERSON. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this section, 

5 a corporation shall not be considered a person under Fed6 eral law for any purpose, including voting, running for of7 fice, or donating funds to a political candidate. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4729 IH

1 (b) EXCLUSIVE LIST OF LAWS APPLICABLE TO COR2 PORATIONS.—A corporation shall be considered a person 

3 under Federal law only for the purposes of— 

4 (1) exercising rights to due process; 

5 (2) participating in any manner of a civil ac6 tion; 

7 (3) participating in a contract; 

8 (4) the right to own property; or 

9 (5) the ability to declare bankruptcy. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4392 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4392

To align exemptions for general solicitation of investment in commodity 
  pools similar to the exemption provided for general solicitation of 
       securities under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2014

 Mr. Fincher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To align exemptions for general solicitation of investment in commodity 
  pools similar to the exemption provided for general solicitation of 
       securities under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Energize Emerging Opportunities 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR GENERAL SOLICITATION OF INVESTMENT IN COMMODITY 
              POOLS.

    Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall--
            (1) revise section 4.7(b) of title 17, Code of Federal 
        Regulations, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), to read as 
        follows:
    ``(b) Relief available to commodity pool operators. Upon filing the 
notice required by paragraph (d) of this section, and subject to 
compliance with the conditions specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section, any registered commodity pool operator who sells 
participations in a pool solely to qualified eligible persons in an 
offering which qualifies for exemption from the registration 
requirements of the Securities Act pursuant to section 4(2) of that Act 
or pursuant to Regulation S, 17 CFR 230.901 et seq., and any bank 
registered as a commodity pool operator in connection with a pool that 
is a collective trust fund whose securities are exempt from 
registration under the Securities Act pursuant to section 3(a)(2) of 
that Act and are sold solely to qualified eligible persons, may claim 
any or all of the following relief with respect to such pool:''; and
            (2) revise section 4.13(a)(3)(i) of such title to read as 
        follows:
    ``(i) Interests in the pool are exempt from registration under the 
Securities Act of 1933, and such interests are offered and sold 
pursuant to section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the regulations 
thereunder;''.
                                 <all>
```