alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Dennis KAUCHER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 67029.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 31, 1995.

Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breek K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of one count of felony stealing, § 570.030, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced defendant as a prior and persistent offender to a prison term of thirteen years. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Order entered March 31, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00397 - CV IN RE ALBERT G. HILL, III, Relator Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11 - 045 23



### O RDER The Court has before it the petition for writ of mandamus filed in the above cause. Upon review of the record and the briefing on file in the above captioned mandamus, Cause No. 05 - 14 - 00397 - CV, and the appeal in Cause No. 05 - 13 - 00732 - CV, Albert G. Hill, III v. Albert G. Hill, Jr. , the Court concludes that there is substantial overlap among the issues presented by the appeal, Cause No. 05 - 13 - 00732 - CV, and the petition for writ of mandamus, Cause No. 05 - 14 - 00397 - CV. Accordingly, on its own motion the Court CONSOLIDATES the petition for writ of mandamus, Cause No. 05 - 14 - 00397 - CV, into the appeal, Cause No. 05 - 13 - 00732 - CV. The Court ORDERS that all future pleadings be filed in Cause No. 05 - 13 - 00732 - CV. Appellant may file additional briefing in the appeal, if desired, on the issues raised by the petition for writ of mandamus on or before April 30, 2014 or shall notify the Court by that date that it will not file additional briefing. Appellee may file a response to appellant’s brief within thirty d ays of thedate appellant files its brief or notifies the Court that it will not file briefing in addition to its

petition for writ of mandamus. /s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1446]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name of Committee: Communication Disorders Review Committee.
    Date: February 22-23, 1996.
    Time: 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m., February 22; 8 a.m.-adjournment, 
February 23.
    Place: Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Craig A. Jordan, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIDCD/DEA/SRB, EPS Room 400C, 6120 Executive 
Boulevard, MSC 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892-7180, 301-496-8683.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5, U.S.C. The 
applications and/or proposals and the discussion could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which could 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.173 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communication Disorders)

    Dated: January 22, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-1446 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Case 2:18-cv-00382-SMB Document 7 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00382-SMB Document 7 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cv-00382-SMB Document 7 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Volcan Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pnina Feldman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)

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

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                       |     |                                                                     
|---------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  January 5, 2009 | By: | /s/ Pnina Feldman                                                   
|                       |     | Pnina Feldman                                                       
|                       |     | President and Chief  Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Daniel P. Sharkey, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ATMI, Inc. (the“Company”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented inthis annual report;  4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Companyand have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluation;  c) disclosed in this annual report any change in theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting;and
 5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of theCompany’s board of directors:
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theCompany’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 12, 2004                                                  /s/ Daniel P. Sharkey   Daniel P. Sharkey,  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.82


         THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 4, 1995
                                    BETWEEN
         AFC ENTERPRISES, INC. F/K/A AMERICA'S FAVORITE CHICKEN COMPANY
                                (THE "COMPANY")
                                      AND
                         SAMUEL N. FRANKEL ("EMPLOYEE")

         WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of December 4, 1995 as amended on June 1, 1997 (the "Employment
Agreement"), governing the terms and conditions of Employee's employment with
the Company; and

         WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend the compensation
provision of the Employment Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants
contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties
agree as follows:

         1.       Section 3 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in
its entirety and the following new Section 3 is inserted in lieu thereof:

                  3.       Base Salary.

                           Beginning on April 1, 2000 and continuing during the
                  term hereof, the Company shall pay Employee, in equal
                  installments no less frequently than monthly, a base salary
                  at the rate of no less than Three hundred Thirty Thousand
                  Dollars ($330,000.00 U.S.) per annum. The Employee's base
                  salary shall be reviewed by the Board of Directors of the
                  Company on an annual basis.

         2.       The Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is hereby
reaffirmed and restated herein by the undersigned, and said Employment
Agreement is hereby incorporated herein by reference as fully as if set forth
in its entirety in this Third Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be
executed and Employee has hereunto set his hand this 17th day of May, 2000,
effective as of April 1, 2000.


                                        COMPANY:

                                        AFC ENTERPRISES, INC

                                        By: /s/ Frank J. Belatti
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Frank J. Belatti, Chief Executive
                                           Officer


                                        EMPLOYEE:

                                          /s/ Samuel N. Frankel
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Samuel N. Frankel
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6126

CURTIS W. KING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director of VDOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00474-jct-mfu)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis W. King, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis W. King seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that King has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Gabriel Quinn Enos, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-18-00207-PHX-SMB 

DETENTION ORDER 

 

 On June 20, 2019, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for revocation 

of supervised release. A detention hearing was held. The Court considered the information 

provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether Defendant 

should be released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant 

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. § 

3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 20th day of June, 2019.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

FILED 

--LODGED 

-raa.!R~EC~E_!!!IVE;.!;!D--;.==.:C~Opy 

NOV 2 0 2019 

CLERK US DISTRICT COURT 

BY DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

DEPUTY 

· IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

No. CR-18-00223,:TUC-RCC(DTF). 

11 V. 

JURY QUESTIONS 

DURING TRIAL 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

Defendant. 

Jury questions during trial. 

Day3 
' 

! 

I 

i -----~--+----~----· 

I 

i 

... ',1}' -

. I 

. ~ ll JC')j UX w .f ;1 _.G 

~ '1 , · ~ \ ,i . M YJ 

. . " 
: 

, 

' 

-

·-

' 

·- J.L,f 

-~(rl\ 

0 N 2-0I 8"' l,() 

) 

rA-e S5a q e +haf Scoi V 

S h-e_r:ff. G· 01-4q 

... 

1 

--

-- --- . - - -· -· - --

-

·• 

, 

-· 

1(); f- Wa,5 +A.e. 

+ --

Seh+ +o ../-:he 

.7 

vt~ , 

0 

V 

- . 

- -- -

- •. 

- -

I 

f 

I 

I 

I 
1 . 

~--'----,---~---+-----------~--

:11 -~---~~---'----T-- :.. 

..: . 

· Ti-ltf_ -
1 
{[) · _ 0h~+ wz( : B ucf c;e±--·.· _ 

· ,&,-c }ju_ · p I /t1 I) . 4~ M e:J.; Ca..(~ -

· l.Xcim tne/ls- - o ~Kumaine -:r: lie. a.. I 

-

@J -T>o .'j 

~ck~U _ 

~_F7_· -~,F'-'(J,'Yi~,__· _...FJ_...::=-0 ~Ii'_· ?~------'----'-/-+-±.1.---=5-=--.C) _______w_ !].._,,·O~-__ _ . - . . ··.- · .. 7 

o-- , com e- _/&._cove,,, -

~~ ·:. 

. / 
-~----~i-----,---------1 

. \ 

I 

-- i -

I 

• I 

~~--~-____,___1--~-------'---I
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                       |  |                  |  |                              
|---------------------- |  | ---------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                       |  | Percentage Owned |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Heritage Bank          |  | 100%             |  | United States                
|HopFed Capital Trust I |  | 100%             |  | Delaware                     

SUBSIDIARIES OF HERITAGE BANK



|                            |  |                  |  |                              
|--------------------------- |  | ---------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                            |  | Percentage Owned |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Fall & Fall Insurance, Inc. |  | 100%             |  | Kentucky
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 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), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Chad C. BraunName:
    Chad C. BraunTitle:
    Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary of AmREIT Monthly Income &
Growth IV Corporation, the General
Partner of AmREIT Monthly Income &
Growth Fund IV, L.P.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 688 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 688

    Expressing support for the goals and ideals of the first annual 
 National Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Day taking place on September 
                               26, 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2009

  Ms. Titus (for herself, Ms. Berkley, and Mr. Heller) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing support for the goals and ideals of the first annual 
 National Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Day taking place on September 
                               26, 2009.

Whereas in 1971, in Public Law 92-195 (commonly known as the ``Wild Free-Roaming 
        Horses and Burros Act'') (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), Congress declared 
        that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the 
        historic and pioneer spirit of the West;
Whereas, under that Act, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
        Agriculture have responsibility for the humane capture, removal, and 
        adoption of wild horses and burros;
Whereas the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are the Federal 
        agencies responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Act;
Whereas a number of private organizations will assist with the adoption of 
        excess wild horses and burros, in conjunction with the first National 
        Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Day; and
Whereas there are approximately 31,000 wild horses in short-term and long-term 
        holding facilities, with 18,000 young horses awaiting adoption: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals of a National Wild Horse and Burro 
        Adoption Day to be held annually in coordination with the 
        Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture;
            (2) recognizes that creating a successful adoption model 
        for wild horses and burros is consistent with Public Law 92-195 
        (commonly known as the ``Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros 
        Act'') (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) and beneficial to the long-term 
        interests of the people of the United States in protecting wild 
        horses and burros; and
            (3) encourages citizens of the United States to adopt a 
        wild horse or burro so as to own a living symbol of the 
        historic and pioneer spirit of the West.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00273-CR

Gemma Perez

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1352838D)

February 26, 2015

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_______________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

George Dale Wallace, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Desert States Employers & UFCW Unions 

Pension Plan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-04774-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 Upon review of the Tolling Agreement and Stipulation of Dismissal Without 

Prejudice (Doc. 13), and good cause appearing; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Tolling Agreement and Stipulation of 

Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. 13). All pending hearings and motions/stipulations 

(Doc. 11) are deemed moot. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this case without prejudice and directing 

the Clerk to close this matter. 

 Dated this 26th day of February, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:17-cv-04774-JJT Document 14 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6816

ALFREDO SIMPSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LONNIE MOORE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-97-231)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfredo Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we

grant Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we

deny a certificate of appealabilty and dismiss on the reasoning of

the district court. Simpson v. Moore, No. CA-97-231 (E.D. Va. Mar.

11, 1997). 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