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

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[NAFTA-00838]

Winona Knitting Mills, Inc. Berwick Knitwear (Formerly Komar & 
Sons Berwick Knitwear) Berwick, Pennsylvania; Notice of Revised 
Determination On Reconsideration

    On April 27, 1996, The Department issued a Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for workers of 
Winona Knitting Mills, Inc., Berwick Knitwear, Formerly Komar & Sons 
Berwick Knitwear, Berwick, Pennsylvania, to apply for NAFTA-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA). The notice will soon be 
published in the Federal Register.
    Investigation findings show that the workers produced sweaters. The 
workers were denied NAFTA-TAA because criteria (3) and (4) of the group 
eligibility requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, were not met. Investigation findings 
showed that Winona Knitting Mills did not import sweaters from Mexico 
or Canada, nor did Winona shift production of sweaters to Mexico or 
Canada.
    New investigation findings on reconsideration shows that the 
articles manufactured by Winona Knitting Mills have been impacted 
importantly by imports of sweaters from Mexico and Canada. U.S. import 
statistics for sweaters from Mexico and Canada show imports increased 
significantly during the time period relevant to the investigation. The 
quantity of U.S. imports of sweaters increased 65% from 1993 to 1994, 
and by almost 125% from 1994 to 1995.

Conclusion

    After careful consideration of the new facts obtained on 
reconsideration, it is concluded that the workers of Winona Knitting 
Mills, Inc. of Berwick, Pennsylvania were adversely affected by 
increased imports from Mexico and Canada of articles like or directly 
competitive with sweaters produced at the subject firm.

    ``All workers of Winona Knitting Mills, Inc., Berwick Knitwear, 
Formerly Komar & Sons Berwick Knitwear, Berwick Pennsylvania who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
February 26, 1995 are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 
250 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC this 8th day of May 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-13119 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
Order entered January 29, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00041-CR

EX PARTE DEMOND JONES

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-83350-2020

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 20, 2021 motion to extend the time 

to file his notice of appeal. We GRANT appellant’s motion. Appellant’s notice of 

appeal is deemed timely filed on the date it was received. This is an accelerated 

appeal and is governed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.

We ORDER the trial court to prepare a certification of appellant’s right to

appeal and to file it with the clerk’s record.

We ORDER the Collin County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record

by February 15, 2021. Appellant has filed a brief indicating that the trial court 
adjudicated appellant’s writ application on written arguments without conducting a 

hearing. Thus, we will not order the filing of a reporter’s record.

We ORDER the State to file its brief by March 8, 2021. After the

clerk’s record and the State’s brief have been filed, the Court will notify the 

parties of the submission date and panel.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable

Benjamin N. Smith, Presiding Judge, 380th Judicial District Court; Lynne Finley, 

Collin County District Clerk; and counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

               Schedule of Omitted Documents and Omitted Details


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Omitted Document                              Omitted Details
 ----------------                              ---------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                            <C>
 Note Purchase Agreement dated November 15,    Security Life of Denver Insurance Company
 2000, by and among Navigant                   purchased $5,000,000 of Notes; USG Annuity
 International, Inc., and Security Life of     & Life Company purchased $5,000,000 of
 Denver Insurance Company, USG Annuity &       Notes; Northern Life Insurance Company
 Life Company, Northern Life Insurance         purchased $3,000,000 of Notes; Reliastar
 Company, Reliastar Life Insurance             Life Insurance Company purchased $3,000,000
 Company, Reliastar Life Insurance Company     of Notes; Reliastar Life Insurance Company
 of New York, and Security Connecticut         of New York purchased $2,000,000 of Notes;
 Life Insurance Company                        and Security Connecticut Life Insurance
                                               Company purchased $2,000,000 of Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note Purchase Agreement dated November 15,    Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association
 2000, by and between Navigant                 of America purchased $15,000,000 of Notes
 International, Inc., and Teachers
 Insurance and Annuity Association of
 America
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note Purchase Agreement dated November 15,    Hartford Life Insurance Company purchased
 2000, by and between Navigant                 $5,000,000 of Notes
 International, Inc., and Hartford Life
 Insurance Company
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note Purchase Agreement dated November 15,    The Guardian Life Insurance Company of
 2000, by and between Navigant                 America purchased $5,000,0000 of Notes
 International, Inc., and The Guardian
 Life Insurance Company of America
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note Purchase Agreement dated November 15,    The Prudential Insurance Company of America
 2000, by and between Navigant                 purchased $25,000,000 of Notes
 International, Inc., The Prudential
 Insurance Company of America
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
Case 2:17-mj-00588-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00588-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00588-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00588-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 4 of 4
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-138742) pertaining to the Learning Ventures, Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Capella Education Company 1999 Stock Option Plan and the Capella Education Company2005 Stock Incentive Plan of our reports dated February 24, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Capella Education Company, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CapellaEducation Company, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

February 24, 2010
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.333-86958, 333-64974, 333-60162, and 333-41362 of I-many, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement Nos. 333-68924, 333-76716, 333-85044, and 333-88714 of the Company on Form S-3 of our report datedFebruary 13, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the application ofprocedures relating to certain disclosures and reclassifications of financial statement amounts related to the 2001 and 2000 financial statements that were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and for which we have expressed noopinion or other form of assurance other than with respect to such disclosures and reclassifications) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

May 8, 2003
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 0 2 - 00 413 - CR

In re Lydia Foster Whiteley

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 51,226 , HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO , JUDGE PRESIDING

Lydia Foster Whiteley fatally shot her common

- law husband in the presence of two witnesses. She pleaded guilty to murder, was adjudged guilty by the court, and was sentenced to ten years in prison. She now appeals from an order by the district court refu sing her request for postconviction DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01

- .05.

Appellant = s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief

meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel = s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.2 We have reviewed the record and counsel = s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel = s motion to withdraw is granted.

The distr ict court = s order is affirmed.

Lee Yeakel, Justice Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel Affirmed Filed: October 24, 2002
D o Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 403 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 403

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 19, 2010.
Whereas the education of children in the United States is the foundation of the 
        future success of the United States;
Whereas education is critical for the creation of an innovative workforce and 
        for increasing the global competitiveness of the United States;
Whereas teachers help students cultivate the knowledge and principles necessary 
        to be successful in life;
Whereas teachers are held to high expectations;
Whereas teachers help instill civic responsibility among students in the United 
        States;
Whereas teachers deserve annual national recognition for their knowledge, 
        selfless dedication to their profession, compassion, and sacrifice; and
Whereas the Tuesday of the first full week of May of each year is an appropriate 
        day for the establishment of National Teacher Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Teacher Day; and
            (2) calls upon the people of the United States to observe such a day 
        with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
AGREEMENT





FINAL AGREEMENT







I, Ruby Lorraine “Tootie” Feagan, do hereby agree to sell all my rights, assets, recipes, customers, customer lists, baking related equipment, building and all things utilized in the baking of pies and desserts, other than any movie or book rights, which I will retain, to the Tootie Pie Company, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (the Company), in return for $50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) and 600,000 shares of common stock in the Company, with the shares to be divided as follows: 200,000 shares to go to Ruby Feagan and the remaining 400,000 shares to go to my daughter, Bobbie Keese.  I understand that no new shares will be owed either of us as part of this transaction. I understand and agree that this transaction is a more than generous value for my above listed assets.




I agree to execute a non-competition clause with the Company, whereby I will be prohibited from working, consulting or otherwise operating or assisting, directly or indirectly, any business associated with or related to pies or desserts with the Tootie Pie Company, Inc.




This Agreement is meant to be the Final Agreement between the parties that will be executed, replacing the non-binding Letter of Intent dated April 29, 2005 and acknowledge that all consideration has been given or paid to the satisfaction of all of the parties to this Final Agreement. 




Signed and executed this 6th day of November, 2006, by the parties below:




By: /s/ Ruby Lorraine “Tootie” Feagan

   By: /s/ Don L. Merrill, Jr.

Ruby Lorraine “Tootie” Feagan                        Don L. Merrill, Jr., President

                                                                           Tootie Pie Company, Inc.,

                                                                           a Nevada Corporation
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 127829 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

LAURINDA HINKLE and ESTATE OF CRAIG Stephen J. Markman,

D. HINKLE, by LAURINDA HINKLE, Personal Justices 

Representative,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 127829 

 COA: 247099 
 Branch CC: 96-003161-NP 

CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO.,

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

LEAR ROMEC, a/k/a HYDRO-AIRE, and 

TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, a/k/a 

TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Intervenor-Appellee, 

and 

RILEY AVIATION, INC., HANSEATIC AIR, 

INC., HANSEATIC AIR OF MICHIGAN, INC., 

COLDWATER AIR, INC., TRI-STATE 

AIRMOTIVE, LLC., AIRCRAFT ACCESSORIES 

OF OKLAHOMA, and TRI-STATE AVIATION 

SERVICES, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 28, 

2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are 

not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0919 

I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 28, 2005
 

Clerk
**Schedule
      10.22**


Secured
      Parties




1.  PFK
      Acquisition Group, LLC became a party to the Security Agreement as of February
      21, 2006.





2.  Alfred
      F.
      Bracher, III became a party to the Security Agreement as of February 14, 2006.





3.  Howard
      Goldberg became a party to the Security Agreement as of March 13, 2006.





4.  Real
      Path, Inc. became a party to the Security Agreement as of February 14, 2006.





5.  Robert
      Schachter Trust, Diane Schachter, Trustee became a party to the Security
      Agreement as of February 7, 2006.





6.  Harvey
      Goldberg became a party to the Security Agreement as of March 24, 2006.





7.  Larry
      Chimerine became a party to the Security Agreement as of March 21, 2006.





8.  Nob
      Hill
      Capital Partners, LP became a party to the Security Agreement as of February
      13,
      2006.





9.  Nob
      Hill
      Capital Associates, LP became a party to the Security Agreement as of July
      30,
      2006





10.  Nicolette
      Consulting Group Limited became a party to the Security Agreement as of August
      10, 2006.





11.  PFK
      Acquisition Group II, LLC became a party to the Security Agreement as of June
      28, 2006.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20415

Conference Calendar

 

JASON LEON RAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

S. EDGAR, Deputy Sheriff; TOMMY THOMAS, Sheriff; HARRIS COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF HARRIS, TEXAS,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-2913

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jason Leon Ray, Texas prisoner # 955809, appeals from the

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants

S. Edgar and Tommy Thomas on Ray’s excessive force claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ray argues that the district court erred in

granting the defendants’ summary judgment motion prior to

receiving his response. Ray notes that he was proceeding pro se

in the district court, and he contends that he was never informed

of a time limit to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary
No. 04-20415

-2-

judgment and that he was ignorant of the local rules of the

district court. 

The sole notice requirement when a motion for summary

judgment has been filed is that the motion must be served at

least 10 days before the summary judgment hearing is held. See

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Enplanar, Inc. v. Marsh, 11 F.3d 1284,

1293 n.11 (5th Cir. 1994). A court satisfies the notice

requirements of Rule 56 if local rules require that a response to

a summary judgment motion be filed within a specified period. 

See Rodriguez v. Pacificare of Tex., Inc., 980 F.2d 1014, 1020

(5th Cir. 1993). The local rules of the district court provide

sufficient notice for a pro se litigant such as Ray. See 

S.D. TEX. CIV. R. 7.3 & 7.4; Martin v. Harrison County Jail,

975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Ray also argues that the district court would not have

granted summary judgment had it considered the evidence presented

in his late-filed response to the defendants’ summary judgment

motion. In considering an argument that the grant of summary

judgment was improper, this court considers “only the evidence

that was in front of the district court.” Wallace v. Texas Tech

Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Ray has

failed to provide a “valid excuse” for his failure to produce the

evidence prior to the district court’s ruling on the summary

judgment motion, he has not shown that he is entitled to relief.

See id. at 1052.
No. 04-20415

-3-

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26517-26518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13227]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26518]]

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than June 11, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Genie D. Short, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Stephen Elsmer Cone, Jr., Lubbock, Texas; to acquire an 
additional 21.79 percent, for a total of 29.19 percent of the voting 
shares of Sundown Bankshares, Inc., Sundown, Texas, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Sundown State Bank, Sundown, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 21, 1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-13227 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Henry SULLENGER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 66903.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 30, 1996.

Susan K. Eckles, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

REINHARD, Presiding Judge.

Movant appeals from the motion court’s judgment dismissing his amended Rule 24.035 motion as untimely and denying relief on his *pro se*motion after an evidentiary hearing. The state concedes the necessity of a remand to the motion court “with instructions to conduct a Sanders1 hearing to determine why an amended motion was not [time*444ly] filed by post-conviction counsel-” Movant also addresses a point on appeal to the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief on his *pro se*motion. However, judicial economy would, not be served by such piecemeal review. We remand to the motion court pursuant to the state’s concession.

KAROHL and DOWD, JJ., concur.

1

. *See Sanders v. State,*807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1991).
Case 2:17-cr-01518-JJT Document 1 Filed 10/07/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01518-JJT Document 1 Filed 10/07/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01518-JJT Document 1 Filed 10/07/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01518-JJT Document 1 Filed 10/07/17 Page 4 of 4
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1165 CA 11-00070**  PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.

KURT A. WIEDENHAUPT, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAUL F. HOGAN, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

DUKE, HOLZMAN, PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLP, BUFFALO (JAMES W. GRESENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JAECKLE FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL, LLP, BUFFALO (HEATH J. SZYMCZAK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered August 16, 2010. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Wiedenhaupt v Hogan ([appeal No. 2] ___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 18, 2011]).

Entered: November 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court