alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 14 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 18 of 18
----

**EXHIBIT 4.16**

 

San Antonlos Resources Inc.P.O. Box 10073 West Georgia St., Vancouver, B.C.V7Y 186** 

 

DEBT WAIVER AGREEMENT**
THIS AGREEMENT is dated for reference the 2nd day of July,2002.

The undersigned, ANTONIOS KRIPOTOS. hereby agrees to waive the outstandingaccrued salary amount of $144,000 on the books of the company and any otherpayments made by me to or on behalf of San Antonios Resources Inc. or itssubsidiary San Antonios Resources (USA) Inc. up until such time as I remain aDirector of the company.

Yours faithfully,

/s/ Antonios Kripotos

President**SAN ANTONIOS RESOURCES INC.**
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, William A. Shumaker, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 

 

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

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

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

 

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; 

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

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 15, 2005 

 

/s/ William A. Shumaker

William A. Shumaker

President

and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE v. McGILL

No. 76 PC.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 29.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 11 October 1978.
RESOLUTIONS INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
                    DIRECTORS FROM NINE TO TEN

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Laclede Gas Company (the "Company")
desires that the number of directors of the Company be increased from nine
to ten directors, effective at the close of business on November 20, 1997;
and

     WHEREAS, an amendment to the Company's Bylaws is required to effect
this change:

     NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Article IV, Section 1, of the
Company's Bylaws is hereby amended, effective at the close of business on
November 20, 1997 to read as follows:

     Section 1.  Number, Classification and Term of Office.

     The property, business and affairs of the Company shall be managed and
controlled by its Board of Directors which shall, effective at the close of
business on November 20, 1997, consist of ten (10) members.  At the meeting
of the Board of Directors at which this By-law is adopted, the tenth member
of the Board of Directors shall be selected by a majority of the nine
directors then serving.  Such tenth member, thus selected by the Board of
Directors, shall serve from November 21, 1997 until the annual meeting of
stockholders in 1998.  The remaining nine members of the Board of Directors
shall continue (throughout the remainder of their current respective three
year terms) in their respective three classes of three members each.  At the
annual meeting of stockholders in 1998, four (4) directors shall be elected
as a class, all of whom shall serve until the annual meeting of stockholders
in 2001.  Such four positions shall cover: (a) the three (3) directorship
vacancies caused by the expiration of the terms of the three directors who
were elected at the annual meeting of stockholders in 1995 to serve for
terms expiring at the time of the annual meeting of stockholders in 1998;
and (b) the directorship vacancy caused by the expiration of the term of the
tenth director whose term of service will also (as provided above) expire at
such annual meeting of stockholders in 1998.  Commencing with the annual
meeting of stockholders in 1998 referred to above, the directors shall be
elected in three classes (with one such class to be elected annually, and
with each class of directors to serve until the third annual meeting of
stockholders after the meeting at which such class of directors is elected),
in successive groups of four directors (constituting one class of
directors);  three directors (constituting a second class of directors); and
three directors (constituting a third class of directors).  All directors
shall serve for their respective terms and until their respective successors
shall be duly elected and qualified.

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appropriate officers are hereby
authorized to cause the Secretary of State of Missouri and the New York and
Chicago Stock Exchanges to be notified of the change in number of Directors.








                                 Page 16
#### EPTING-BALLENGER v. BENTON

No. 151 PC.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 693.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982.
EXHIBIT 32.1
   CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,
  AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles E. Drimal
Jr., Chief Executive Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:
  (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
     /s/ Charles E. Drimal
Jr.
  Chief
Executive Officer
  March 25,
2009
Case 1:06-cv-15015-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ITEM 1 OF
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          28,944
<SECURITIES>                                    21,533
<RECEIVABLES>                                      962
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,932
<PP&E>                                          31,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 148,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,633
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   148,305
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,497
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 934
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,147)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,147)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,147)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. McDOUGALD

No. 126 PC.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 244.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 January 1979. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 January 1979.
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 11 of 11
#### Eva B. Williams *vs.*Lauretta E. Fritz.

Norfolk.

March 5, 1926.

March 8, 1926.

Present: Rugg, C.J., Crosby, Pierce, Carroll, & Wait, JJ.

*Probate Court,*Jury issues.

The record of an appeal from an order of a judge of probate, denying a motion to frame issues for a jury upon a petition to prove a will, was *held*to present no new question of law and to disclose no reversible error.

Petition, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Norfolk on August 24, 1925, for the proof of the will of Thomas L. Williams, late of Quincy.

*238Lauretta E. Fritz, daughter, appeared to oppose the petition and moved for the framing of jury issues. The motion was heard by *McCoole,*J., and was denied. The contestant appealed.

*J. L. Edwards,*for the respondent.

*J. D. Mackay,*for the petitioner.

By the Court.

This appeal from an order of the judge of probate, denying a motion to frame issues for a jury upon a petition to prove a will, presents no new question of law and discloses no reversible error. *Wilbar*v. *Diamond,*249 Mass. 568, *Old Colony Trust Co.*v. *Spaulding,*250 Mass. 400, *Adams*v. *Blair, ante,*152, and cases collected in each opinion.

*Order denying issues to a jury affirmed.*
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 57-6 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 57-6 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 57-6 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 57-6 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 57-6 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 57-6 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the quarterly report of Berry Plastics Corporation (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 27, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Ira G. Boots, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





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





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.





This certificate is being furnished
solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the
Report.








/s/ Ira G.
Boots


Ira G.
Boots


President
and Chief Executive Officer





Date:                      February
9, 2009
## NO. 12

- 23

- 00298

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EAST TEXAS RANCH, L P
, APPELLANT

V.

ARLIS A. JONES
, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 173RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDU M OPINION
PER CURIAM

Appellant

, East Texas Ranch, L P

, fi led a motion to dismiss this appeal in which it states

th at it no longer desires to pursue the appeal

. T he moti on to dismiss is grant ed , and the appeal is

dismissed

. Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42. 1 (a). C osts are taxed against the party i ncurring same

.

Opinion delivered March 28, 2024

. Panel consis ted of Worthen, C .J

., Hoyle, J., a nd Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 2 8 , 2024

NO. 12

- 23

- 00298

- CV

EAST TEXAS RANCH, LP
, Appellant
V.
A RLIS A. JONES
, Appellee

Appeal fr om the 173rd Dist rict Court

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV20

- 0498

- 173 )

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the A ppellant t o dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being consider ed, it i s he reby ORDER ED, ADJUDGE D and

DECRE ED by this Court that the motion to dismiss b e granted and the appeal be dismissed
, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for obs ervance. C osts are taxed against the party

incurring same.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C .J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ISIDRO HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50275

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03113-BEN-1

MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ISIDRO HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50027

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03113-BEN-1

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 6, 2011

Pasadena, California

FILED

DEC 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Before: B. FLETCHER, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Isidro Hernandez-Ramirez appeals his conviction for attempted reentry after

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He claims that the district court

precluded him from presenting a defense that he had a good faith belief that

Uniform Commercial Code documents filed with the California Secretary of State

gave him a legal right to enter the United States. We affirm.

The district court did not preclude the defense from presenting evidence or

arguing a good faith defense in closing. Rather, it advised defense counsel that it

would give a jury instruction explaining that the UCC governs commercial

transactions, not immigration law, if defense counsel argued the applicability of the

UCC in closing argument. Such an instruction would have been a correct

statement of the law. Defense counsel then chose not to make the argument. Our

decision in United States v. Smith-Baltiher, 424 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2005), does not

control this case, because in Smith-Baltiher, the defendant introduced evidence of

his mother's United States citizenship. Id. at 922 & n.8. In contrast, here, as the

district court found, Mr. Hernandez proffered “no evidence” that he had a good

faith belief that the documents he presented had “any force or effect on his ability

to enter the United States.”

Because the jury instructions given adequately covered specific intent as

required by United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188, 1196 (9th Cir.
Appellee's motion to permit argument by telephone on December 6, 2011, is 1

GRANTED.

2000) (en banc), Hernandez-Ramirez was not entitled to any additional “good

faith” jury instruction. United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 

AFFIRMED .

1
#### BANK v. WALLENS AND SCHAAF v. LONGIOTTI

No. 33 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 580.

Petition by defendant Longiotti for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 October 1975.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the quarterly report of Berry Plastics Corporation (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 28, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ira
G. Boots, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





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





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.











/s/ Ira G.
Boots


Ira G.
Boots


President
and Chief Executive Officer





Date:                      August
7, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 70828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23226]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8000-8]


Tribal Solid Waste Management Assistance Project: Request for 
Proposals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Tribal Solid Waste Interagency Workgroup is soliciting 
proposals for its eighth year of the Tribal Solid Waste Management 
Assistance Project (previously called the Open Dump Cleanup Project). 
Since FY99, the Workgroup has funded over 100 projects with 
approximately $15.4 million. In FY05, the Interagency Workgroup made 
approximately $2 million available to fully or partially fund 20 
selected projects. A similar amount of funding is projected for FY06. 
The Project is part of a Federal effort to help tribes comprehensively 
address their solid waste needs. The purpose of the Project is to 
assist with closing or upgrading tribal high-threat waste disposal 
sites and providing alternative disposal and integrated solid waste 
management. The Workgroup was established in April 1998 to coordinate 
Federal assistance to tribes in bringing their waste disposal sites 
into compliance with the municipal solid waste landfill criteria (40 
CFR part 258). Current Workgroup members include representatives from 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA); the Indian Health Service (IHS); and the Departments of 
Agriculture and Defense.

DATES: For consideration, proposals must be postmarked by January 31, 
2006 and received by EPA no later than February 10, 2006. Proposals 
received after the closing date will not be considered. Electronic 
submissions must be submitted no later than January 31, 2006. See the 
Guidance for Applicants package for more information on the submission 
deadline.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the Guidance for Applicants 
package may be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/tribalmsw by clicking on the ``Grants/Funding'' link. Copies may also 
be obtained by contacting EPA, IHS or BIA regional or area offices or 
one of the following Workgroup representatives:

EPA--Christopher Dege, 703-308-2392 or Charles Bearfighter Reddoor 703-
308-8245.
IHS--Steve Aoyama, 301-443-1046.
BIA--Debbie McBride, 202-208-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Criteria: Eligible recipients of assistance 
under The Open Dump Cleanup Project include federally recognized tribes 
and intertribal consortiums. A full explanation of the submittal 
process, the qualifying requirements, and the criteria that will be 
used to evaluate proposals for this project may be found in the 
Guidance for Applicants package.

    Dated: November 16, 2005.
Matt Hale,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 05-23226 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 3
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 28, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01092-CV

BARBARA JACKSON, Appellant

V.

DORETTA W. FISHER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-79309

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

This appeal is from a judgment signed August 28, 2012. No clerk’s record 

has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal 

informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On January 11, 2013, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, 
2

appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court 

with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Donovan.