alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 20 - 00132 - CR JACKIE RUSSELL KEETER , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 220th District Court Hamilton County, Texas Trial Court No. CR06361

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jackie Russell Keeter appeals from the trial court’s order denying his
“Motion Nunc Pro Tunc.” An order denying a moti on nunc pro tunc is not appealable. See Sanchez v. State , 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); see also Castor v. State , 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2006, no pet.). The appropriate remedy for the denialKeeter v. State Page 2

of a motion nunc pro tunc is to file a petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals. Ex parte Florence , 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Ybarra , 149 S.W.3d 147, 148

- 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of juris diction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(f). Notwithstanding that we are dismissing this appeal, Keeter may file a motion for rehearing with this Court within 15 days after this opinion and judgment are rendered if he believes this opinion and judgment are erron eously based on inaccurate information
or documents. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 49.1. Moreover, if Keeter desires to have the opinion and judgment of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the day this Court’s judgment is rendered or the day t he last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2(a).

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Neill Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed May 6, 2020 Do not p ublish [C R PM ]
FlUEDtN tercouRTOFWPe** MAY24Z018 

### Brief#01-18-00156-CV .^

IPorche Phillips (defendant) demand that Cullen Park 

### Apartments (plaintiff) produce all paper work, receipts, and demand letters to vacate the property. When I 

### received the packet that Ihad given the (plaintiffs) most ofthe receipts were gone. Ialso demand all computer records from Plaintiffs bothfrom non-payments and 

### eviction notices. I will subpoena for monthly reconciliation of accounts from the property. The question arises that if I did not pay for a year, why was I not evicted. I never received any notice: however, see attached case #177200446450 thatjudgement for Plaintiff
on 10/10/2017 was denied.

9 <yi-5-/^03^5"
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 the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision

          - [AC-20: OTS Nos. 17022, H3882, H3883, and H4438]

                    Notice is hereby given that on October 12, 2007, the Office of Thrift Supervision approved the application of Atlantic Coast Federal, M.H.C., and Atlantic Coast Bank, Waycross, Georgia, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail:                     *Public.Info@OTS.Treas.gov*) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20522, and OTS Southeast Regional Office, 1475 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30309.                

Dated: November 5, 2007.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Sandra E. Evans,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-5604 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                      21,750,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,165,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                    92,005
<INVENTORY>                                  3,775,084
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,599,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          442,753
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,156,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,599,361
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,088,787
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               512,404
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                576,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            576,383
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   576,383
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHRISTIAN PHILIP PARKER, a/k/a Armani, a/k/a Super P, a/k/a Sup, a/k/a King , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr
- 00529

- LO

- 2; 16

- cv
- 00700

- LO )

Submitted : August 24, 2017 Decided: August 29, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Christian Philip Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Alexander , Mysti Dawn Degani , Brian David Harrison , Scott Butler Nussbum , Katherine Rumbaugh , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Mary Katherine Barr Daly, Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant U nited States Attorney s, Alexandria, V irginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christian Philip Parker appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order granting Parker’s motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c)(2) (2012) , in which Parker sought a further
sentence reduction

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error

. See United States v. May , 855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017) (noting that prohibition on a
district court’s consideration of a motion to reconside r a § 3582 order is not jurisdictional and is waived if not invoked by t he g overnment ). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ John B. Gerlach, Jr.John B. Gerlach, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerMay 9, 2006By:
    
    /s/ John L. BoylanJohn L. BoylanChief Financial OfficerMay 9, 2006
 25
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00134

- CR

MICHAEL DAVID FREDRI CKSON , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 14,371

ORDER

Michael David Fredrickson was convicted of injury to a child and sentenced to 20

years in prison. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.04 (West 2011). On December 11, 2014, this
appeal was abated to the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law
regarding Fredrickson’s motion to suppress evidence and motion to suppress
statements, both heard and ruled on by the tr ial court on February 24, 2014. The trial
court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were ordered to be prepared, signed, and
filed as a supplemental clerk’s record with this Court within 28 days from the date ofFredrickson v. State Page 2

the December 11, 2014 abatement order

. The trial court has requested an extension of
time to submit the required findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Accordingly, this appeal is reinstated. The trial court’s motion for extension of
time is granted. This appeal is again abated, and the trial court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law are ordered to be prepared, signed, and filed as a supplemental

clerk’s record with this Court within 2 1 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal reinstated Motion granted Appeal abated Order issued and filed January 15, 2015
#### PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. v. CURRAN

No. 36 P 82.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 199.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982.
# C_2013044EN.01015701.xml

| 15.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/157 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/157

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 for the conservation of fishery through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound’

COM(2012) 591 final — 2012/0285 (COD)

2013/C 44/28

On 22 October 2012, the European Parliament, and, on 5 November 2012, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 for the conservation of fishery through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 for the conservation of fishery through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound

COM(2012) 591 final — 2012/0285 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal, it decided at its 485th plenary session of 12 and 13 December 2012 (meeting of 12 December 2012) by 129 votes, with 1 abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 12 December 2012.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5177 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense, 

in awarding a contract for the procurement of goods or services, to 

give a preference to offerors that employ veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2018 

Mr. KNIGHT (for himself and Mrs. MURPHY of Florida) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the 

procurement of goods or services, to give a preference 

to offerors that employ veterans, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Encouraging Veteran 

5 Employment Act of 2018’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5177 IH

1 SEC. 2. PREFERENCE FOR OFFERORS EMPLOYING VET2 ERANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 137 of title 10, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new section: 

6 ‘‘§ 2339a. Preference for offerors employing veterans 

7 ‘‘(a) PREFERENCE.—In awarding a contract for the 

8 procurement of goods or services for the Department of 

9 Defense, the head of an agency may give a preference to 

10 offerors that employ veterans on a full-time basis. The 

11 Secretary of Defense shall determine such preference 

12 based on the percentage of the full-time employees of the 

13 offeror who are veterans. 

14 ‘‘(b) ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES FOR MISREPRESEN15 TATION.—(1) If the head of an agency determines that 

16 an offeror willfully and intentionally misrepresented the 

17 veteran status of the employees of the offeror in a bid sub18 mitted under subsection (a), such head of an agency may 

19 suspend or debar such offeror for a period of not less than 

20 five years. 

21 ‘‘(2) Not later than 30 days after determining that 

22 an offeror should be suspended or debarred under para23 graph (1), the head of an agency making such determina24 tion shall initiate a suspension or debarment proceeding, 

25 as applicable, against the offeror. The head of an agency 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5177 IH

1 shall complete such an action not later than 90 days after 

2 initiating such action.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

4 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

5 after the item relating to section 2339 the following new 

6 item: 

‘‘2339a. Preference for offerors employing veterans.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RAMIRO TONY FLORES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30274

D.C. No. 1:08-CR-00065-EJL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 23, 2010** 

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 

Ramiro Tony Flores appeals from the 150-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine

and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846,

FILED

SEP 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-30274

and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1956(h), and 1957. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Flores contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) by applying a four-level leadership role enhancement,

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), without resolving disputed portions of the

presentence investigation report. The district court properly overruled Flores’

objection to the leadership role enhancement as he did not raise any specific factual

disputes that required resolution by the district court. See United States v.

Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2008); cf. United States v. Carter, 219

F.3d 863, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2000). 

AFFIRMED.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  






 
 No. Shares Common Stock Par Value $.01 Per share Incorporated under the laws of State of Delaware Great Western
Bancorp, Inc. THIS CERTIFIES that is the owner of fully paid and non-assessable Shares of common stock of the par value of one cent per share of the above- named Corporation transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly
authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by signed by its duly authorized officers. Dated , 20 . Ken Karels President & Chief Executive
Officer Donald Straka Secretary & General Counsel 







 



 
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURTIY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE For Value Received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto - Shares
represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated In presence of NOTICE:
THE SIGNATURE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5169 

To amend the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act to 

prioritize research on sensor and imager technology in agriculture, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2018 

Mr. SOTO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research 

Grant Act to prioritize research on sensor and imager 

technology in agriculture, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SENSOR AND IMAGER TECHNOLOGY IN AGRI4 CULTURE. 

5 (a) AGRICULTURE AND FOOD RESEARCH INITIA6 TIVE.—Section 2(b)(2)(E) of the Competitive, Special, 

7 and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 

8 3157(b)(2)(E)) is amended— 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5169 IH

1 (1) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) as 

2 clauses (iv) and (v), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following 

4 new clause: 

5 ‘‘(iii) sensor and imager technology;’’. 

6 (b) SPECIALTY CROP RESEARCH INITIATIVE.—Para7 graph (4) of section 412(b) of the Agricultural Research, 

8 Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 

9 7632(b)) is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(4) new innovations and technology, includ11 ing— 

12 ‘‘(A) improved mechanization and tech13 nologies that delay or inhibit ripening; and 

14 ‘‘(B) sensor and imager technology.’’. 

Æ 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-20549, No. 333-65459, No. 333-38568, No. 333-88836 and No. 333-107645 of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statements No. 333-81384 and 333-107633 of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No.
333-112182 of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. on Form S-4 of our reports dated March 10, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Powerwave Technologies, Inc., and managements reports on the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. for the year ended January 2, 2005.



|                      
|----------------------
|DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 
|                      
|Costa Mesa, California
|March 10, 2005
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cr69-SPM

CARL WAYNE ZEIDERS,

 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant proposed to enter a guilty plea to Count One of this indictment. The

district judge referred this matter to me for purposes of hearing Defendant's proposed

change of plea pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and to enter a report and recommendation

as to whether to accept the change of plea. All parties consented to this procedure, and

the written consent has been entered. After hearing, it is found that:

1. Defendant understands the nature of the charge or charges as to which the

plea is offered.

2. Defendant understands the right to trial by jury, to persist in a plea of not

guilty, to assistance of counsel at trial, and to confront and cross examine adverse

witnesses, and understands the right against compelled self-incrimination.

3. Defendant understands the maximum possible sentence if the guilty plea is

accepted, including the effect of a supervised release term, understands that the
Page 2 of 3

sentencing guidelines are advisory, and understands that the court has discretion to

depart from those guidelines and sentence up to the statutory maximum sentence.

4. The plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made,

and is not the result of force or threats, or of promises except for promises contained in

the written plea agreement between the parties.

5. Defendant is competent to plead guilty.

6. Defendant understands that answers given by the Defendant during the plea

colloquy, which were under oath, may be later used against the Defendant in

prosecution for perjury or false statement.

7. There is a factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea.

8. There is a plea agreement which should be accepted by the court. Defendant

understands the terms of the plea agreement.

9. Defendant has voluntarily consented to go forward with this plea of guilty

before me. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily has waived the ten day period for filing

objections to this report and recommendation, and agrees that written objections, if any,

must be filed within twenty-four hours from receipt of a copy of this report and

recommendation. The United States also consents to this procedure, including the

shorter period for objections.

Case No. 4:10cr69-SPM
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the court ACCEPT the plea agreement

and defendant's plea of guilty.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on October 25, 2010. 

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 24 hours after receiving a copy of this report and

recommendation.

Case No. 4:10cr69-SPM