alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Laclede Gas Company
720 Olive Street
St. Louis, MO  63101
                                 February 28, 1997

Mr. Thomas C. Guyton, Vice President
The Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis
One Boatmen's Plaza
800 Market Street
St. Louis, MO  63166-0236

Dear Mr. Guyton:

This letter sets forth the agreement (the "Three-Day Additional Credit
Agreement") between Laclede Gas Company ("Laclede") and the Boatmen's
National Bank of St. Louis ("Boatmen's") whereby Boatmen's agrees to extend
to Laclede for three days March 1, 1997 through March 3, 1997, an additional
line of credit in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000), with any
borrowing thereunder to mature on March 4, 1997 and to bear the same rate of
interest as the "Alternate Base Rate", as defined in that supplemental line
of credit agreement among Laclede, Boatmen's, the Chase Manhattan Bank, and
Mercantile Bank of St. Louis National Association which was originally
entered into on August 19, 1996 and has since been amended and extended
(such supplemental line of credit agreement, as heretofore supplemented and
amended, being hereinafter called the "Line of Credit Agreement").  In the
event Laclede makes a request for an advance of funds under this Three-Day
Additional Credit Agreement, Laclede shall execute an appropriate promissory
note similar (to the extent appropriate) in form to the form of promissory
note attached as Exhibit A to the Line of Credit Agreement.

This Three-Day Additional Line of Credit Agreement shall in no way limit or
reduce any funds otherwise available to Laclede under the terms of the
Supplemental Line of Credit Agreement, or under the $10 million line of
credit between Laclede and Boatmen's evidenced by letter of Laclede to
Boatmen's dated January 14, 1997.

Please indicate acceptance of this Three-Day Additional Credit Agreement by
signing in the appropriate space below, and on the enclosed duplicate
original of this letter, and  returning to Laclede the signed duplicate
original of this letter.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 LACLEDE GAS COMPANY

                                 By:  /s/ R. L. Krutzman
                                 Name: R. L. Krutzman
                                 Title: Treasurer and Assistant Secretary

Accepted and Agreed to as of
the day first written above:

THE BOATMEN'S NATIONAL BANK OF ST. LOUIS


By:  /s/ Thomas C. Guyton
Name: Thomas C. Guyton
Title:  Vice President                        
                                 Page 29
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOSEPH E. BROWN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5:10cv160/MCR/EMT

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated September 6, 2011 (doc. 25). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The court has

made a de novo determination of timely filed objections (doc. 29). 1

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, the objections, and the record

of this case, the court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

 Specifically, Brown cites Dist. Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308, 2321-22 (2009), for

1

the proposition that whether a freestanding claim of actual innocence exists is an open question, and he cites

Ninth Circuit precedent which would allow such a claim if the habeas petitioner can “go beyond demonstrating

doubt about his guilt, and [ ] affirmatively prove that he is probably innocent.” Baker v. Yates, 339 Fed. Appx.

690, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal marks omitted and concluding that the petitioner had not met this

standard), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3288 (2010). Brown acknowledges that Eleventh Circuit precedent does

not allow for a freestanding actual innocence claim in a noncapital case, but he seeks to preserve the issue.

The court reiterates here that there is no basis for concluding that the state court’s adjudication of Brown’s

newly discovered evidence claim is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal

law. This is not a capital case, and absent a clear holding otherwise by the Supreme Court, this court is bound

by Eleventh Circuit precedent, which does not recognize a freestanding innocence claim in a noncapital case.

See Jordan v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 485 F.3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 979 (2007).

Case 5:10-cv-00160-MCR-EMT Document 30 Filed 10/25/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2011.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 5:10cv160/MCR/EMT

Case 5:10-cv-00160-MCR-EMT Document 30 Filed 10/25/11 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. HAMLIN

No. 94 PC.

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 607.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 17 August 1981.
# C_2009263EN.01001801.xml

| 5.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/18

---

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings against Aspis Pronia Anonimi Eteria Yenikon Asfalion

(Publication pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

(Publication pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

2009/C 263/07

| Insurance undertaking | Aspis Pronia Anonimi Eteria Yenikon Asfalion, head office at Leoforos Kifisias 62 in Marousi, Attica, GREECE. |
| --- | --- |
| Date, entry into force and type of decision | Decision No 156 of the Board of Directors of the Private Insurance Supervisory Committee of 16 and 21 September 2009 relating to the definitive withdrawal of the company's operating licence and its winding-up.
  Entry into force: 21 September 2009 |
| Competent authorities | Private Insurance Supervisory Committee |
| Ipatias 5 |
| 105 57 Athens |
| GREECE |

Insurance undertaking

Aspis Pronia Anonimi Eteria Yenikon Asfalion, head office at Leoforos Kifisias 62 in Marousi, Attica, GREECE.

Date, entry into force and type of decision

Decision No 156 of the Board of Directors of the Private Insurance Supervisory Committee of 16 and 21 September 2009 relating to the definitive withdrawal of the company's operating licence and its winding-up.

Entry into force: 21 September 2009

Competent authorities

Private Insurance Supervisory Committee

Ipatias 5

105 57 Athens

GREECE

Supervisory authorities

| Private Insurance Supervisory Committee |
| --- |
| Ipatias 5 |
| 105 57 Athens |
| GREECE |

Private Insurance Supervisory Committee

Ipatias 5

105 57 Athens

GREECE

Appointed liquidator

| Harilaos Kafedzis (winding-up supervisor) |
| --- |
| Lawyer in Athens |
| Panepistimiou 57 |
| 105 57 Athens |
| GREECE |

Harilaos Kafedzis (winding-up supervisor)

Lawyer in Athens

Panepistimiou 57

105 57 Athens

GREECE

Applicable law

Greek law; Articles 3(3), 7 to 9, 10, 12(a) and 17(a) to 17(c) of Legislative Decree No 400/1970.

---
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) 

) 

v. ) ID No. 1201018188

) 

CLAUDE LACOMBE, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

Submitted: September 12, 2024

Decided: September 18, 2024

ORDER

1. On this 18th day of September, 2024, upon consideration of the Superior

Court Commissioner’s Report and Recommendations,1 Defendant Claude 

LaCombe’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief and Motion for 

Correction of an Illegal Sentence (collectively, the “Motions”)2 made pursuant to 

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court 

that:

2. On May 10, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Postconviction

Relief.3

 Also on May 10, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Correction 

of an Illegal Sentence.4

 The Motions were referred to the Commissioner pursuant 

to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Rule 62 for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 

1

 D.I. 144. 

2

 D.I.s 138, 139. 

3

 D.I. 138. 

4

 D.I. 139. 
2

law. On August 29, 2024, the Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation 

in which she recommended that the Court summarily dismiss Defendant’s Motion 

for Postconviction Relief as procedurally barred and deny the Motion for Correction 

of an Illegal Sentence.

5

3. A party can file and serve written objections to a Commissioner’s order 

“[w]ithin ten days after filing of a Commissioner’s proposed findings of fact and 

recommendations.”6 Neither party filed and served an objection on or before 

September 12, 2024, ten days after the Commissioner filed her Report and 

Recommendations.

4. The Court adopts the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendations in 

their entirety for the reasons set forth therein. The Commissioner’s findings are not 

clearly erroneous, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion.7 Accordingly, the 

Motions are hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

 Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Claude LaCombe (SBI #00552189)

5 D.I. 144. 6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a)(5)(ii).

7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a)(4)(iv).
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00334

- CV

ESTATE OF ORISON FLE MING

MCDONALD, II, DECEAS ED

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WICHITA COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 29,9 56

- F

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered the parties’ “Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal .” It is the

court ’ s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shal l be paid by the party incurring same , for which let

execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d) , 43.4

.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 11 , 2016
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 Annual Report of Syngas International Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Klein, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the Company.





By:

/s/Robert Klein



Robert Klein,

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer

April 13, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

PROFESSIONAL TITLE, LLC;

MICHAEL HOWELL; MICHAEL AVIS;

and AVEST, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv72/RS-EMT

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiffs’ Motion For Extension Of Time (Doc. 67).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint not later than

May 19, 2011.

ORDERED on May 5, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00072-RS-EMT Document 68 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 1
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 amended Annual Report of One Voice Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Dean Weber, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 9.06 has been
provided to One Voice and will be retained by One Voice and furnished to the
Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated: April 17, 2007



/s/ Dean Weber
-----------------------------
Name: Dean Weber
President, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer),
interim Chief Financial Officer
(Principal accounting and financial officer)
and Chairman of the Board
Eagle Broadband, Inc., and Subsidiaries
                 Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
                                 August 31, 2004

Exhibit 23.1

     Consent of McManus & Company, PC
     Independent Public Accountants

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-117309 and 333-117690) and on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-109481, 333-106074, 333-97913, 333-118117 and 333-111160) of Eagle
Broadband, Inc., of our report dated December 13, 2002, relating to the
financial statements, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ McManus & Company, PC
-------------------------
McManus & Company, PC
Rockaway, New Jersey
December 28, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6222

NATHANIEL GLENN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus CANNON, Investigator; CHRISTIAN BROCK; CHRIS MARCHI, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-03-1582-6-27) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Glenn, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Glenn, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on December 21, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on January 25, 2005. * Because Glenn failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DR. SEYMOUR STRICKER, Individually

and on behalf of all others similarly situated;

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:10-cv-229/LAC/MD

BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA INC.; BP

PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC.;

BP AMERICA PRODUCTION

COMPANY; BP EXPLORATION &

PRODUCTION INC.; ANADARKO

PETROLEUM CORPORATION;

ANADARKO E&P COMPANY, LP;

MOEX OFFSHORE 2007, LLC; MOEX

USA CORPORATION; MITSUI & C.O.

(U.S.A), INC.; TRANSOCEAN LTD.;

TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC.;

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE

DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.;

TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS, LLC;

TRITON ASSET LEASING GMBH;

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES,

INC.; M-I, LLC; WEATHERFORD U.S.,

L.P.; DRIL-QUIP, INC.; CAMERON

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

F/K/A COOPER CAMERON

CORPORATION; JOHN AND JANE

DOES A-Z; AND CORPORATIONS AZ.

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Motions to Stay Proceedings filed by

Defendants BP America, Inc., BP Products North America, Inc., BP America Production

Case 3:10-cv-00229-LC -EMT Document 31 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
Company, Inc., and BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (doc. 15), joined by Defendant

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (doc. 21). Plaintiff has filed responses (docs. 28, 29).

 The complaint seeks damages arising out of the recent oil rig disaster in the Gulf of

Mexico. Defendants request that this Court stay all proceedings in this case pending a ruling

from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on whether numerous related

cases involving the disaster, including the instant cause, will be consolidated. Upon review

of the motions and response, the Court finds the stay will preserve judicial resources in the

likely event that the cases are consolidated. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Motions to Stay Proceedings (docs. 15, 21) are hereby GRANTED.

2. All proceedings in this case are temporarily stayed, pending the JPML’s final

decision on whether to consolidate this and other actions arising from the BP oil rig

explosion and subsequent oil spill.

3. The Parties shall file a status report as soon as a decision has been made by the

JPML on the matter of consolidation.

ORDERED on this 22nd day of July, 2010.

s/L.A. Collier

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case No. 3:10-cv-229/LAC/EMT Page 2 of 2

Case 3:10-cv-00229-LC -EMT Document 31 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The notice of the names of members of a Performance Review Board for the Department of the Army published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 25, 2007 (72 FR 60662) has added two additional members.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 30, 2007.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lucrencia Murdock, Civilian Senior Leader Management Office, 140 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0140.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives.

The members of the Department of the Army Performance Review Boards are: 

1. Dr. Grace M. Bochenek, Director, U.S. Army Tank automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, U.S. Army Material Command.

2. Mr. George S. Dunlop, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)/Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Legislation).

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-5522  Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M