alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 12 , 2013



### SUBSTITUTE JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NABILCO INC. AND D. HOUSTON, INC. D/B/A TREASURES , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 12

- 00832

- CV V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS A ND THE CITY OF HOUST ON , Appellee s

___________ _____________________
T oday, the Court heard appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal from the temporary injunction signed by the court below on October 12, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order our judgment filed January 10, 2013, VACATED , and the appeal DISMISSED. Our opinion issued January 10, 2013, is not withdrawn.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant s , Nabilco Inc. and D. Houston, Inc. D/B/A Treasures , jointl y and severally

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 512 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 512

Expressing sympathy for the victims and victims' families of Air France 
                              Flight 447.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2009

 Mr. Quigley submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing sympathy for the victims and victims' families of Air France 
                              Flight 447.

Whereas on the evening of May 31, 2009, Air France Flight 447 took off from Rio 
        de Janeiro, Brazil;
Whereas Flight 447 had an electric circuit malfunction at 10:14 p.m., is 
        estimated to have endured great turbulence, and never made it to its 
        final destination of Paris, France;
Whereas 228 people were on board;
Whereas the people of the United States, Brazil, and France have developed a 
        strong friendship based on mutual interests and respect; and
Whereas Flight 447 appears to have crashed in international waters and had 
        passengers from 32 countries on board, including 61 French citizens, 58 
        Brazilians, 26 Germans, and 2 United States citizens: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses its deepest 
sympathies for the victims and families for the tragic losses suffered 
as a result of the missing aircraft, Air France Flight 447.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0456

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NEIL LYNN NUNES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 31, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 20 2023

06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0456
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40817

Conference Calendar

__________________

MILTON L. SHUBBIE,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN BUFFINGTON, in his official capacity

as U.S. Parole Commissioner,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:94-CV-30

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Milton L. Shubbie appeals from the denial of his motion

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), following the denial of his

petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Shubbie contends that the Parole Commission delayed

resolution of his case; that his state-court convictions did not

warrant parole revocation; that his federal parole had expired

before he was convicted in state court and that the parole

officer's warrant application against him was premature; that the
No. 95-40817

-2-

Parole Commission lost jurisdiction over him in 1985, when he was

transferred to state custody; that this court awarded him credit

for his time in state custody; that the Parole Commission revoked

his parole on insufficient evidence regarding the state charges

against him; that his parole had outlived itself because federal

officials mistakenly turned him over to Louisiana authorities;

that he was deprived of his right to carry legal documents from

state custody to federal custody; and that the Parole Commission

violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by denying him credit for

time spent in state custody and federal custody. He also lists

as issues whether his parole should be terminated based on the

date of his state-court conviction and whether it was proper for

the Parole Commission to deny him credit for time spent in state

custody. Additionally, Shubbie requests that this court

terminate his parole.

Shubbie does not brief whether the district court abused its

discretion by denying his Rule 60(b) motion, see Travelers Ins.

Co. v. Liljeberg Enter., Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir.

1994); nor does he brief whether he exhausted administrative

remedies regarding the revocation of his parole. See Fuller v.

Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). Shubbie has abandoned the

relevant issues on appeal, see Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 844, 848 (5th Cir. 1987); we will not

consider the issues he does raise on appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
FILED

June 30, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

MAY 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) 

) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9603-CC-00119 

Appellee, )

) Bedford County

V. )

) Honorable William Charles Lee, Judge

)

JEROME PATRICK LYONS, ) (Speeding)

)

 Appellant. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Jerome Patrick Lyons, Pro Se Charles W. Burson

200 7th Street - Bell Buckle Attorney General & Reporter 

P.O. Box 0622

Shelbyville, TN 37160-0622 Georgia Blythe Felner

Counsel for the State

Criminal Justice Division

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

William Michael McCown

District Attorney General

Robert G. Crigler

Assistant District Attorney General

One Public Square, Suite 300

Shelbyville, TN 37160-3953

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

PAUL G. SUMMERS,

Judge
-2-

O P I N I O N

The appellant, Jerome Patrick Lyons, was issued a speeding citation by

Trooper Inman of the Tennessee Highway Patrol for traveling 81 m.p.h. in a 55

m.p.h. zone. After a preliminary hearing, he was bound over to the grand jury by

the General Sessions Court. The grand jury indicted the appellant for speeding. 

The appellant chose to represent himself at trial. The jury found him guilty of

speeding. The trial court entered judgment. The appellant appeals his

conviction raising the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court had prejudicial ex parte communications

with the jurors;

2. Whether the speeding ticket was issued in violation of

Tennessee's Constitution;

3. Whether the trial court was correct in refusing the appellant a

trial at the General Sessions level;

4. Whether the district attorney general abused his discretion by

having the appellant indicted by the grand jury; and 

5. Whether the transmission of the record for appeal is complete. 

This Court understands that as to pro se litigants, our criminal justice

system with all of its rules appears overwhelming. With this in mind, we attempt

to relax or bend the rules when confronted with pro se appeals. However, we

cannot break the rules. This Court is one of review and cannot properly address

the appellant's issues without a transcript or statement of the proceedings. It

was incumbent upon the appellant to prepare a record that included all material

necessary for disposition of his appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b) & (c); State v.

Beech, 744 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). Furthermore, the

appellant's issues are not supported by argument, citation to correct authorities,

or appropriate references to the record. Failing to do so results in a waiver of

these issues. Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App., Rule 10(b). Accordingly, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App., Rule 20.
-3-

__________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

CONCUR:

__________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

__________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
| 1.   | the      report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | the      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the Company’s financial condition and results of operations as      of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements      included in such report. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /S/ Patrick      Sheaffer   | /S/ Kevin J.  Lycklama             |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Patrick      Sheaffer       | Kevin J.      Lycklama        |
| Chief Executive      Officer     | Chief Financial      Officer  |
|                                  |                               |
| Dated: May 27,      2010         | Dated: May 27,      2010      |

| 109         |
|------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10177

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RONEE WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-275-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ronee Williams has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Williams has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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

May 6, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10177 Document: 00514944499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2019
No. 18-10177

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-10177 Document: 00514944499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2019
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of PennantPark Investment
Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q of PennantPark Investment Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented
in this Report;

4. The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this Report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.

Dated
February 8, 2008.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Arthur H. Penn     
|Arthur H. Penn         
|Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 3.2

TRANSLATION DOCUMENT

                         MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF WEIHAI
                          HUOJU HI-TECH DEVELOPING AREA

                       (OFFICIAL DOCUMENT NUMBER: 1997 64)

                THE ADVICE OF ISSUING THE APPROVAL CERTIFICATE OF
              WEIHAI GAOXIN DAEWOO ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS CO., LTD.

Xianyang Pianzhuan Development Co., Ltd.:

Your application documents about establishing a Joint-Venture has been received
and reviewed. The Joint-Venture Contract(Charter) and Article of
Association(By-laws) of Weihai Gaoxin Daewoo Electronic Components Co., Ltd.(the
company) established by Xianyang Pianzhuan Development Co., Ltd. (Party A), Asia
Electronics Holding Co. Inc.(Party B) and Korean Daewoo Electronic Components
Co., Ltd.(Party C) conform to "The Law of People's Republic of China on Joint
Ventures Using Chinese and Foreign Investment" and are approved to be effective.
The reply is as follow:

1.   It is approved that the total investments is USD5,730,000 and the
     registration capital is USD3,500,000. Party A invests USD350,000 in cash,
     Party B invests USD2,800,000 in cash and Party C invests USD350,000 in cash
     and as a result, Party A will own 10% interest, Party B will own 80%
     interest and Party C will own 10% interest of the company.
2.   Field of operation: Developing, manufacturing and sales of deflection yokes
     of CPT and CDT.
3.   The term of operation is 20 years.
4.   The Board of Directors is composed of 5 persons. The Chairman of the Board
     is Mr. Du, Qing Song; The directors are Ms. Li, Hai Ying; Mr. Zhen, Yi
     Yong; Mr. Hu, Jian An and Ms. Li, Wen Ya.
5.   The foreign currency of the company is balanced on its own.
6.   The manufacturing location of the company is in Weihai Hi-Tech Developing
     area.

The approval  certificate  (Shandong No. [1997] 0634) will be issued to you with
this document.  Please register in The Commerce  Administration Bureau within 30
days after this documents' issuing date.

MANAGEMENT COMMISSION OF WEIHAI HUOJU HI-TECH DEVELOPING AREA
                                                       (Seal)

                                                       September 15, 1997

CC Copies to...
EX-10.30






Baldwin Technology Company, Inc.

2 Trap Falls Road

Suite 402

Shelton, CT 06484

Tel: 203-402-1000

Fax: 203-402-5500




January 29, 2009




Mr. John P. Jordan

5 Lake Wind Road

New Canaan, CT 06840




Dear John:



Pursuant to Paragraph 16 of the agreement dated December 19, 2008 (the “Agreement”), which sets
forth the terms of your employment with Baldwin Technology Company, Inc. (the “Company”), and in
accordance with a letter agreement between you and the Company dated January 13, 2009 wherein you
agreed to reduce your annual base salary by ten (10%) percent, the Agreement is hereby amended,
effective February 1, 2009, as follows:





	 	1.	 	Paragraph 2.A is amended to provide for an annual base salary of two hundred twenty
nine thousand five hundred dollars ($229,500).
	 
	 	2.	 	Notwithstanding the foregoing, any payments that may become due to you in accordance
with Paragraph 2.F or Paragraph 8 of the Agreement, and any other calculations which rely
on your annual base salary shall continue to be calculated as if your annual base salary
was two hundred fifty five thousand dollars ($255,000).




As so amended by this letter agreement, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Very truly yours,

BALDWIN TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ Karl S. Puehringer	 	 
	 

	 	 

Karl S. Puehringer
	 	 
	 

	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED	 	 
	 
	/s/ John P. Jordan	 	 
	 	 	 
	John P. Jordan	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:
	 	February 3, 2009
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

MICHAEL BAILEY

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

RAQUEL ARELLANO

Assistant United States Attorney

AZ State Bar No.: 011796

CHRISTINE A. MELTON 

Assistant United States Attorney

AZ State Bar No.: 021649

United States Courthouse

405 W. Congress, Suite 4800

Tucson, Arizona 85701

raquel.arellano@usdoj.gov

christine.melton@usdoj.gov 

Telephone: (520) 620-7300

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Robert Francis Krebs,

 Defendants.

CR 18-00263-TUC-JGZ (JR)

NOTICE OF GOVERNMENT’S INTENT TO USE DEFENDANT’S PRIOR 

FELONY CONVICTIONS 

FORIMPEACHMENT PURPOSES PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID 609

The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, MICHAEL BAILEY, 

United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, Raquel Arellano and Christine A. 

Melton, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby provides notice of its intent to use the 

following prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes pursuant to Rule 609, 

Federal Rules of Evidence:

Case number: Conviction: Date of Conviction: Location:

CR 3836 Theft of Property September 21, 1988 Pima County,

Valued More than $1000 AZ

CR 06379 Armed Robbery September 21, 1988 Pima County,

AZ
- 2 -

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

E81-1086-CFA Burglary of a Structure April 14, 1989 Seminole County,

and (re-sentencing) FL

Robbery with a Firearm

Respectfully submitted this 27nd day of August, 2019.

MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

s/ Raquel Arellano 

RAQUEL ARELLANO

Assistant U.S. Attorney

s/ Christine Melton 

CHRISTINE MELTON

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by

other means this 29nd day of August, 2019, to:

Jorge Leonardo Costales, Esq.

Gregory Jon Berger, Esq.

Attorneys for the Defendant
Case 2:18-mj-08085-DKD Document 13 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:18-mj-08085-DKD Document 13 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:18-mj-08085-DKD Document 13 Filed 04/06/18 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:18-mj-08085-DKD Document 13 Filed 04/06/18 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:18-mj-08085-DKD Document 13 Filed 04/06/18 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:18-mj-08085-DKD Document 13 Filed 04/06/18 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:18-mj-08085-DKD Document 13 Filed 04/06/18 Page 7 of 7
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

Daniel J. O’Connor, Jr., Bar No. 010081

Karen J. Stillwell, Bar No. 022711

O'CONNOR & DYET, P.C.

7955 South Priest Drive

Tempe, Arizona 85284

daniel.oconnor@occlaw.com

karen.stillwell@occlaw.com

(602) 241-7000

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mussalina Muhaymin as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin Jr.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

City of Phoenix, an Arizona Municipal

Corporation; Antonio Tarango; Officer 

Oswald Grenier; Officer Kevin 

McGowan; Officer Jason Hobe; Officer 

Ronaldo Canilao; Officer David Head; 

Officer Susan Heimbinger; Officer James 

Clark; Officer Dennis Lerous; Officer 

Ryan Nielson; Officer Steven Wong; and 

Doe Supervisors 1-5,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-04565-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL 

EXPEDITED MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

(Assigned to the 

Honorable Susan M. Brnovich)

Defendants City of Phoenix, Antonio Tarango, Oswald Grenier, Kevin McGowan, 

Jason Hobel, Ronaldo Canilao, David Head, Susan Heimbigner, James Clark, Dennis 

Leroux, Ryan Nielsen and Steven Wong (collectively the “Phoenix Defendants”), 

respectfully request this Court seal Defendants’ Expedited Motion for Protective Order and 
- 2 -

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

Motion for Sanctions, including the referenced exhibits. The Motion and exhibits pertain 

to conduct by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel directly in violation of this Court’s Protective 

Order (Dkt. No. 072) and June 5, 2020 Order (Dkt. No. 188) and contains information 

designated Confidential under the Protective Order, and therefore, public access should not 

be permitted. 

Dated: October 7, 2020. 

O’CONNOR & DYET, P.C.

By: /s/ Karen J. Stillwell

Daniel J. O’Connor, Jr.

Karen J. Stillwell

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 7, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, using the CM/ECF 

System. A Notice of Electronic Filing will be served to the following registered 

participants:

David A. Chami

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC 

8245 N. 85th Way

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Haytham Faraj

LAW OFFICES OF HAYTHAM FARAJ 

1935 W Belmont Ave. 

Chicago, IL 60657

Attorney for Plaintiff

 Brian J. Theut

THEUT, THEUT & THEUT

5150 North 16th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Guardian Ad Litem and Statutory Representative for A. M. 

By: /s/ Aly Shomar-Esparza