alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

House Calendar No. 70 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 449 

[Report No. 111–146] 

Of inquiry requesting the President to provide certain documents in his 

possession to the House of Representatives relating to the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s April proposed finding that greenhouse gas emissions 

are a danger to public health and welfare. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2009 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

JUNE 12, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Of inquiry requesting the President to provide certain documents in his possession to the House of Representatives 

relating to the Environmental Protection Agency’s April 

proposed finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a 

danger to public health and welfare. 

1 Resolved, That the President is requested to furnish 

2 the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after 

3 the adoption of this resolution, all documents, including 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 449 RH 

1 telephone and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, 

2 and records of internal discussions in his possession pro3 duced by the Administrator of the Environmental Protec4 tion Agency or the Director of the Office of Management 

5 and Budget, relating to the following: 

6 (1) The untitled, undated memo marked ‘‘De7 liberative—Attorney Client Privilege’’, which begins 

8 ‘‘The NPRM fails to articulate the process by which 

9 the Administrator came to the conclusion on p. 30’’. 

10 (2) Interagency comments or documents related 

11 to the Environmental Protection Agency’s April pro12 posed finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a 

13 danger to public health and welfare. 

14 (3) Cost benefit or systematic risk analysis re15 lated to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

16 April proposed finding that greenhouse gas emis17 sions are a danger to public health and welfare. 

18 (4) Scientific evidence that demonstrates health 

19 effects of greenhouse gases. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 70 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 449 

[Report No. 111–146] 

RESOLUTION 

Of inquiry requesting the President to provide cerhealth and welfare. greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public Protection Agency’s April proposed finding that Representatives relating to the Environmental tain documents in his possession to the House of 

JUNE 12, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### STATE of Missouri, ex rel., MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, f/k/a State Highway Commission of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MERAMEC VALLEY ELEVATOR, INC., Exceptions of First National Realty Co., Inc., Peerless Development Corp., Peerless Land Co., and Bayless Company, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 54969.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Nov. 7, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 12, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 13, 1990.

J.B. Carter, Kirkwood, for defendants-appellants.

Alan Rion Schmidt and Paul R. Sterrett, Kirkwood, for plaintiff-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Direct appeal from a judgment on a jury verdict in the amount of $1,400 in a condemnation proceeding.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Sylvanus ONYEANU, Appellant, v. RIVERTREE APARTMENTS and Guaranteed Builders, Inc., Appellees.

No. 01-95-00906-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Feb. 22, 1996.

Orutola Ayodele Oresusi, Houston, for appellant.

Todd Kissner, Houston, for appellees.

Before COHEN, O’CONNOR and WILSON, JJ.

OPINION

COHEN, Justice.

Sylvanus Onyeanu appeals the denials of his motions for reinstatement and for new trial after dismissal for want of prosecution. We reverse and remand.

*398Onyeanu sued appellees, Rivertree Apartments (Rivertree) and Guaranteed Builders, Inc., for injuries he allegedly sustained when he fell from a second floor balcony to the ground.

Trial was set for April 17, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., but the cause was dismissed then for want of prosecution when Onyeanu’s counsel, Mr. Oresusi, failed to appear when the case was called by visiting Judge Hugo Touchy at 9:30 a.m.

Onyeanu moved to reinstate the case, asserting that Mr. Oresusi appeared at 9:00 a.m., but the courtroom was empty. After waiting a few minutes, Mr. Oresusi read a note on the door stating that Judge Chambers, the regular judge, was attending a school outside the county. Mr. Oresusi then left to attend another trial setting1 because he believed it was Judge Chambers’ custom to reset cases when he was attending out-of-town judicial conferences.2 These allegations are in the verified motions and supporting affidavit. There is no statement of facts before us. However, that does not preclude relief.

Affidavits attached to a motion for new trial do not have to be offered into evidence when a post-answer default judgment is attacked. *Director, State Employees Workers’ Compensation Div. v. Evans,*889 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex.1994). It is sufficient that they are attached to the motion for new trial and are part of the record. *Id.*If, as here, there was no recorded hearing and no controverting affidavits, the movant’s uncon-troverted evidence is sufficient if it sets forth facts that, if true, negate intentional or consciously indifferent conduct by the defendant. *Id.*at 269. We apply the same rule in this case to the plaintiff, Onyeanu. The affidavit shows that appellant’s failure to appear for trial was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference. Because it is uncon-troverted, the affidavit must be taken as true. *Id.*at 269.

Points of error one and two are sustained.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

1

. Oresusi had previously filed a motion for a continuance in the present case on April 11, 1995, so that he could attend that trial setting.

2

. The motion asserted that the month before, Judge Chambers had reset all the cases set for trial during the week that he attended a judicial conference.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 4.2




                       FIRST AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT

        THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT ("Amendment"), dated as of June
30, 1999, is by and between Performance Food Group Company, a Tennessee
corporation (the "Company"), and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, a New
York corporation ("AST"), and amends the Rights Agreement dated May 16, 1997,
(the "Rights Agreement"), between the Company and First Union National Bank, as
Rights Agent ("First Union").

                                   WITNESSETH:

        WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined it to be
advisable and in the best interest of the Company to amend the Rights Agreement
to provide for a new Rights Agent; and

        WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21 of the Rights Agreement, the Board of
Directors of the Company has appointed AST as the new Rights Agent effective as
of July 1, 1999, and AST has agreed to act as such;

        NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
agreements herein set forth, the parties hereby agree as follows:

        1. The Company hereby appoints AST as Rights Agent to act as agent to
the Company in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Rights Agreement,
and AST hereby accepts such appointment.

        2. This Amendment shall be governed by an construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Tennessee.

        3. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, and by
the different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when
executed shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which taken together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.


<PAGE>   2


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed, all as of the date first above written.


                                     PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY

                                     By: /s/ Roger L. Boeve
                                        ----------------------------------------

                                     Name:  Roger L. Boeve
                                          --------------------------------------

                                     Title: Executive Vice President
                                           -------------------------------------


                                     AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY

                                     By: /s/ Herbert J. Lemmer
                                        ----------------------------------------

                                     Name: Herbert J. Lemmer
                                          --------------------------------------

                                     Title: Vice President
                                           -------------------------------------
YOUTHSTREAM MEDIA NETWORKS, INC.

                         Amendment to Employment Agreement

                                As of June 29, 2001


     The employment agreement dated June 20, 2000 between James G. Lucchesi and
Youthstream Media Networks, Inc. is amended to extend the term of employment
from June 30, 2002 to June 30, 2003. Accordingly, section 2 of the employment
agreement is amended to read as follows:

     "2. Term of Employment. The term of the Executive's employment under this
     agreement shall commence on the date of this agreement and, subject to
     earlier termination upon the Executive's death or disability pursuant to
     section 5.1 or pursuant to section 6, shall continue until the close of
     business on June 30, 2003."

     Except as set forth above, the employment agreement shall remain in effect
without modification.


                              YOUTHSTREAM MEDIA NETWORKS, INC.


                              By:    /s/ HARLAN D. PELTZ
                                 ----------------------------------
                                 Name:
                                 Title:



                                     /s/ JAMES G. LUCCHESI
                                 ------------------------------------
                                         James G. Lucchesi
1 WO 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

10 United States of America, No. CR-1°7-08279-001-PCT-DLR 

11 Plaintiff, ORDER 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19· 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

v. 

Kalvin Curley, 

Defendant. 

Defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq. a 

detention hearing was held. The defendant is ordered detained pending an intake 

assessment for placement at Crossroads in Phoenix, Arizona or other facility as 

designated by Pretrial Services. Should defendant qualify for such placement, defendant 

shall be released upon conditions set by this Court, including pretrial residency at said 

facility, as conditions do exist which would reasonab~y assure the safety of others and the 

appearance of the defendant. Should defendant not so qualify, the release conditions set 

by this Court shall be vacated and defendant shall be detained. pending trial as there are 

no conditions or combination of conditions which would reasonably assure the safety of 

others or the appearance of the defendant. 

The Pretrial Services Officer is ordered to timely notify this Court of the 

defendant's intake assessment results, and if found acceptable, the date and time the 

II 
1 facility will provide transportation from the Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse for the 

2 defendant. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Dated this 18th day of January, 2018. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 2 -

~yle United States Magistrate Judge
#### William SELTZER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56046.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Feb. 6, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 7, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied April 17, 1990.

*722Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Christine A. Alsop, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PUDLOWSKI, Presiding Judge.

This appeal is from the hearing court’s judgment denying movant’s second Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief.

We affirmed movant’s conviction on direct appeal in *State v. Seltzer,*655 S.W.2d 75 (Mo.App.1983) and affirmed on May 28, 1985 the denial of movant’s Rule 27.26 motion in *Seltzer v. State,*694 S.W.2d 778 (Mo.App.1985). In a Rule 27.26 proceeding our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the findings, conclusions and judgments of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26(j) (repealed effective January 1, 1988); *Sanders v. State,*738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987). The findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after a review of the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. *Id.*

Movant’s first point on appeal alleges the motion court was clearly erroneous for holding that his claim, based on *Batson v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), could not be raised in this proceeding for post-conviction relief. Movant argues the Batson decision is applicable because the prosecutor unconstitutionally used his peremptory strikes to remove blacks from the jury panel.

Both the United States Supreme Court and the Missouri courts have expressly held *Batson*will not apply retroactively to a collateral attack of a conviction which became final before *Batson*was decided. *Griffith v. Kentucky,*479 U.S. 314, 323, 107 S.Ct. 708, 713, 93 L.Ed.2d 649, 658 (1987); *Allen v. Hardy,*478 U.S. 255, 260, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 2881, 92 L.Ed.2d 199, 206 (1986); *Thomas v. State,*736 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Mo.App.1987). In *Thomas,*this court adopted the rule on retroactivity contained in *Allen v. Hardy, supra.*

*Batson*was decided on April 30, 1986. Movant’s conviction was final on September 12, 1985. Because movant’s conviction became final prior to *Batson,*movant’s first point has no merit.

Movant’s second point on appeal charges the motion court clearly erred in denying relief, because the exclusion of eighteen through twenty-year-olds from the jury panel violated his sixth amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. This issue has already been decided adversely to mov-ant’s argument in *State v. Mansfield,*637 S.W.2d 699, 704 (Mo. banc 1982) and *State ex rel. McNary v. Stussie,*518 S.W.2d 630, 637 (Mo. banc 1974). Point denied.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL and KAROHL, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

FILED

FEB 04 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

KOLELA MPOYO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

FIS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 

LLC,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 19-17562

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04307-SPL

U.S. District Court for Arizona, 

Phoenix

MANDATE

The judgment of this Court, entered March 22, 2021, takes effect this date. 

This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

FOR THE COURT:

MOLLY C. DWYER

CLERK OF COURT

By: Rebecca Lopez

Deputy Clerk

Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7

Case 2:17-cv-04307-SPL Document 114 Filed 02/04/22 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAVINDER KUMAR,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73142

Agency No. A087-620-484

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 26, 2016**

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Ravinder Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

 

* 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

AUG 5 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-73142 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual 

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations 

created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th 

Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies as to Kumar’s visa application, occupation, passports, and

marriage. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under 

the “totality of circumstances”). Kumar’s explanations do not compel a contrary 

result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (agency not 

compelled to accept petitioner’s explanation for discrepancy even if plausible). 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Kumar’s corroborative 

evidence did not otherwise establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v.

Holder, 749 F.3d 785,791 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, Kumar’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 

(9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Kumar’s CAT 

claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and he does 

not point to evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely 
 3 14-73142 

than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the 

government if returned to India. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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 on Form 10-QSB of Deja Foods, Inc. (the "Company") for the six
      months ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Fox, acting in the capacity as
      the
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Barry S. Baer, acting in the
      capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best
      of
      our 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
      result of operations of the Company.








/s/
      David
      Fox


David
      Fox


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      4, 2008











/s/
      Barry
      S. Baer


Barry S.
      Baer


Chief
      Financial Officer


March
      4, 2008
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a civil case brought by Plaintiff Leslie Merritt, Jr., against Defendant State 

of Arizona. The State employs police officers, crime lab technicians, and forensic 

scientists who work at the Arizona Department of Public Safety (sometimes referred to as 

“DPS”). In August 2015, DPS officers investigated the shooting of vehicles along various 

freeways in the Phoenix area, including Interstate 10. On September 18, 2015, DPS 

officers arrested Plaintiff Leslie Merritt, Jr., for those shootings, and he was detained in the 

Maricopa County Jail. Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully arrested and imprisoned, 

and that he has incurred damages. Defendant State of Arizona denies any liability and

asserts that the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest and detain Plaintiff.

Plaintiff asserts claims against the State of Arizona for false arrest and false 

imprisonment. Following his arrest on September 18, 2015, Plaintiff remained in custody 

until April 19, 2016, when the charges against him were dismissed. The Court has 

previously ruled, for legal reasons, that Plaintiff may recover only those damages, if any,

incurred during the six-day period between his arrest on September 18 and September 24, 

2015. Your task will be to decide first, whether or not Defendant had probable cause to 

arrest Plaintiff on September 18, 2015, and second, if not, what damages, if any, Plaintiff

incurred between September 18 and September 24, 2015. In making these decisions you 

should not be influenced in any way by the fact that the charges against Plaintiff were 

dismissed in April 2016. 

Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 428 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 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 on Form  10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2005 (the  "Report") of Parke Bancorp,  Inc. (the  "Company") as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission,  we, Vito S.  Pantilione,
President  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Ernest D.  Huggard,  Senior  Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer,  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) 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.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                                             <C>
/s/Vito S. Pantilione                              /s/Ernest D. Huggard
-------------------------------------              -------------------------------------------------
Vito S. Pantilione                                 Ernest D. Huggard
President and Chief Executive Officer              Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)                      (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

</TABLE>

May 20, 2005
Order filed March 18, 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00835

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF S.G., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 17880



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due March 8, 2021

. No brief or motion to extend time has been filed. Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before April 7,
2021 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIESOF REGISTRANT**
| **NAME**                       | ** ** | **JURISDICTION  OF FORMATION** |
|--------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------|
| ** **                     | ** ** | ** **                     |
| CM Intermediary, LLC           |       | Delaware                       |
|                           |       |                           |
| Crown Media United States, LLC |       | Delaware                       |
|                           |       |                           |
| Citi TeeVee, LLC               |       | Delaware                       |
|                           |       |                           |
| Doone City Pictures, LLC       |       | Delaware                       |

 

----