alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. TRUETT LITTLE.

(Filed 2 December, 1964.)

Appeal by defendant from *Braswell, J.,*May 1964 Session of BruNS-WICK.

Criminal prosecution on warrant charging that defendant “did unlawfully and willfully fail and refuse to support his illegitimate child; Shelia Aim Formyduval, age one (1) month, begotten upon the body of Helen E. Formyduval,” a violation of G.S. 49-2, tried *de novo*in the superior court after appeal by defendant from conviction and judgment in the Recorder’s Court of Brunswick County.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the warrant. Judgment imposing a prison sentence, suspended on specified conditions, was pronounced. Defendant excepted and appealed.

*Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Sanders for the State.*

*S. Bunn Frink and Herring, Walton, Parker & Powell for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

There was ample evidence to support the verdict. Hence, the assignment of error directed to the court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit is overruled. Moreover, it is our opinion, and we so decide, that the matters referred to in defendant’s remaining assignments, if error, are not of such prejudicial nature as to constitute ground for the award of a new trial.

No error.
April 27, 1949 

Hon. Pearce Johnson, Chairman 

Committee on State Affairs 

House of Representatives 

51st Legislature 

Aus tin, Texas Cplnlon NO. v-812 

Re: Constltutlonallty of House 

Bill No.224 quitclaiming a 

lot in Borger, Texas. 

Dear Sir: 

. In reply to your request concerning the constltutlonallty OS the above bill, you are advised that 

the only constitutional provlalon which the bill map 

violate is Article III, Section 55, which provide8 as / 

follous: 

“The Legislature shall have no power 

to release or extinguish. or to authorize 

the releasing or extinguishing, in whole 

or In part, the indebtedness, llablllty or 

obllgatlon OS any corporation or individual, 

to this State or to any county or defined 

subdivision thereof, or other munl,clpal 

corporation therein, except delinquent taxes 

which have,,been due for a period of at least 

tenlon years Nov .8 &gj55,Art. III, adopted elecl 3 

It would appear from recltatlone contained in 

the bill that no debt Is released in violation of this 

provision; however, this is a question of fact for your 

determination. IS in fact no debt owing the State or 

Its political subdivisiona is released, then it is our 

opinion that the bill la constitutional. 
Hon. Pearce Johnson - Page 2 - v-812 

SUMMARY 

House Bill 224, 51st Leglslature, QuitclaImIng State's interest 

to a lot In Borger, Texas, acquired 

under tax judgment and execution, to 

record owner is constitutional provided no State debt i8 fllea8qU in 

violation of Article III, Section 55 

of the Texas Constitution. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY ORRERALO~TRXAS 

HDP:bt 

APPROVED 

n 

ATTORNEY QRRRRAL
January 16, 1998 MESSAGE TO U.S. COURT OF APPEALS WEB PAGE USERS: No. 96-2290 GJR INVESTMENTS v. COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA, FL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The panel opinion, which issued January 5, 1998, in the above case has been added to our opinion notepad. It is listed with the cases for January 5. The Appendix to this opinion is currently not available on line but will be soon. If you have any questions, please call Nancy Gilman, (404) 335-6151.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2030 

To prevent Federal agencies from interfering with the marijuana policy of 

States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2019 

Mr. WYDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prevent Federal agencies from interfering with the 

marijuana policy of States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Cannabis Com5 merce Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATES MARIJUANA POLICY. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

8 (1) FEDERAL AGENCY.—The term ‘‘Federal 

9 agency’’ has the meaning given the term ‘‘agency’’ 

10 in section 551 of title 5, United States Code. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2030 IS

1 (2) MARIJUANA.—The term ‘‘marijuana’’ has 

2 the meaning given the term ‘‘marihuana’’ in section 

3 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 

4 802). 

5 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means any 

6 State, the District of Columbia, any territory or pos7 session of the United States, or any Indian tribal 

8 government. 

9 (b) PROHIBITIONS.—No funds authorized or appro10 priated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust 

11 fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by 

12 Federal law, shall be expended to prevent any State from 

13 implementing any law of the State that— 

14 (1) authorizes the use, distribution, possession, 

15 or cultivation of marijuana on non-Federal land in 

16 the State; or 

17 (2) authorizes the transportation of marijuana 

18 across the border of the State if— 

19 (A) the State from which the marijuana is 

20 transported has a State law described in para21 graph (1); and 

22 (B) the State and the State from which 

23 the marijuana is transported have both authorVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:31 Jul 03, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2030.IS S2030

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2030 IS

1 ized such transportation of marijuana between 

2 the States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54712-54713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4765]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

Time and Date: November 1, 2007, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., Eastern Daylight 
Time.

Place: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested 
person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at (505) 827-4565 to receive the 
toll free number and pass code needed to participate in this meeting by 
telephone.

[[Page 54713]]


Status: Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Dated: September 21, 2007.
William A. Quade,
Associate Administrator, Enforcement and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 07-4765 Filed 9-24-07; 2:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------

               CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of North
American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report
of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of
the Company.


                           NORTH AMERICAN GALVANIZING & COATINGS, INC.
                                         (Registrant)



                                                /s/ Ronald J. Evans
                                                -----------------------------
                                                President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer




                                                /s/ Beth B. Hood
                                                -----------------------------
                                                Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                (Principal Financial Officer)

Date:  July 28, 2005
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

DON WILLIAM JACKSON,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 23

- 474

D.C. No. 2:13

- cr

- 00531

- PA

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson

, District Judge , Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024 **

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH

, Circuit Judges

.

Don William Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 60

- month sentence imposed upon the fourth revocation of his

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 4 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 474

Jackson contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

consider or address his mitigating arguments concerning his personal

circumstances, employment and criminal history

, letters of support from family

and friends, and addiction issues . We review for plain error, see United States v.

Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is

none. The record reflects that the district court considered Jackson’s mitigating

argumen ts and explained that the within

- Guid el i nes sentence was warranted in

light of Jackson’s repeated violations and breaches of the court’s trust , his failure

to take advantage of the support offered to him , his ongoing criminal behavior, and

the danger he poses to himself and the public. Contrary to Jackson’s argument,

t his explanation is sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review. See United

States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, Jackson

has not shown a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a

lower sentence had it more explicitly weighed Jackson’s mitigating arguments

against the aggravating circumstances it cited. See United States v. Dallman , 533

F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE v. BRINKLEY

No. 16 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 339.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 August 1974.
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 16 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 16 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. DAWSON

No. 20 PC

No. 12 (Spring Term)

Case below: 48 N.C. App. 99

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 November 1980.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 11

11. Statement re computation of per share earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Third Quarter Ended                    Nine Months Ended
                                                                 June 30,                               June 30,
                                                         1998               1997                1998                1997
                                                         ----               ----                ----                ----

<S>                                                    <C>                <C>                 <C>                <C>      
Net income (loss) in thousands                              $667               $761              $2,542             $(415)

Shares outstanding at beginning of period              7,847,338          7,635,136           7,664,253          7,450,878

Net issuance of shares under stock award
plans, weighted average                                    8,964                627             112,499            119,184
                                                       ---------          ---------           ---------          ---------

Weighted average shares outstanding - basic
earnings per share calculation                         7,856,302          7,635,763           7,776,752          7,570,062

Effect of dilutive securities:
Assumed exercise of stock options,
weighted average of incremental shares                   152,335            242,045             202,592                 --

Assumed purchase of stock under stock
purchase plan, weighted average                           33,282                 --              49,166                 --
                                                       ---------          ---------           ---------          ---------
Weighted average shares and common share
equivalents - diluted earnings per share 
calculation                                            8,041,919          7,877,808           8,028,510          7,570,062
                                                       =========          =========           =========          =========


Basic earning (loss) per share                             $0.08              $0.10               $0.33            $(0.05)
                                                           =====              =====               =====            =======

Diluted earnings (loss) per share                          $0.08              $0.10               $0.32            $(0.05)
                                                           =====              =====               =====            =======
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,286
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,784
<BONDS>                                         88,411
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         83
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                   (105,170)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   206,411
<SALES>                                        128,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,009
<CGS>                                          115,580
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,110
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   150
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,745)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        94
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,839)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,839)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.50)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JASON DORIAN JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-94, CA-98-218-5-BR)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 5, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Dorian Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason Dorian Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Jones, Nos. CR-95-94;

CA-98-218-5-BR (E.D.N.C. June 18, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LaBarge, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald H. Nonnenkamp, Vice President, CFO and Secretary of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.





|                          |                         |                                                       
|------------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|                          |                         |                                                       
|Dated:   November 9, 2005 | /S/DONALD H. NONNENKAMP
|                          |                         | Donald H. Nonnenkamp
Vice President, CFO and Secretary
#### STATE v. DAWSON

No. 171 PC.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 712.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 February 1975.
VANGUARD HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.



EXHIBIT 10.62





AMENDMENT NO. 4

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


            This Amendment No. 4 (this “Amendment’) dated as of May 5, 2009, is made by and between Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Keith B.
Pitts (the “Executive”).


            WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive executed a certain Amended and Restated Employment  Agreement,  dated as of September 23, 2004, as further amended (collectively, the
“EA”), to secure the services of the Executive as Vice Chairman; and


            WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish the Executive’s base salary set forth in Section 6(a) of the EA to be increased to $685,000, effective as of April 1, 2009.


            NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that the EA is amended as follows:


            1.         Defined Terms.  Except for those terms defined above, the definitions of capitalized terms used in this Amendment are as provided in
the EA.


            2.         Amendment to Section 6(a).  Section 6(a) of the EA entitled “Base Salary” is hereby  deleted and replaced with
the following new Section 6(a):





                        “(a)  Base Salary.  Effective April 1, 2009, the Executive’s base salary hereunder

                        shall be $685,000 per year, payable semi-monthly. Commencing July 1, 2010,the

                        Board shall review such base salary at least annually and make such adjustments from

                        time to time as it may deem advisable, but the base salary shall not at any time be

                        reduced from the base salary in effect from time to time.”


            3.         Ratification.  All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are hereby  ratified  by the Company and the
Executive.


1











            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment, each as of the day and year first set
forth above.



                                                                       
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.



                                                                       
By:/s/ Ronald P. Soltman                                 


                                                                                   
Ronald P. Soltman

                                                                                   
Executive Vice President



                                                                       
Executive:






                                                           
            /s/ Keith B/
Pitts                                              



                                                                       
Keith B. Pitts


2
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 2 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 3 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 4 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 5 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 6 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 7 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 8 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 9 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 10 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 11 of 12
Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 7-2 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 12 of 12
#### STATE v. McCALL

No. 55 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 13.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 October 1975.
#### STATE v. BLACKWELDER

No. 148 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 18.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 September 1974.
Case 1:06-cv-15138-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15138-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2