alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07

- 12

- 0 536

- CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL A JANUARY 16 , 2013

______________________________ IN RE RICKY MEALS, RELATOR

______________________________
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE 64 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; NO. B 17074

- 0701 ; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR. , JUDGE

_______________________________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Ricky Meals, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Debra Smith , Official Court Reporter for the 64th District Court of Hale County, Texas, to provide him with a copy of the reporter’s record of plea proceedings in trial court cause number B 17074

- 0701 . We dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
This Court has the authority to issue writs of mandamus necessary to (1) enforce our jurisdiction, (2) against a judge of a district or county court in our district, or (3)2 against a district judge who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under chapter 52 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN

. ' 22.221(a) and (b) ( W EST 2004). Additionally, a writ of mandamus is an order directed personally to the respondent. In re Roseland Oil & Gas , Inc. , 68 S.W.3d 784, 786 (Tex.App

. -- Eastland 2001, orig. proceeding). The named Respondent herein, Debra Smith , is the Official Court Reporter for the 64th District Court of Hale County, not an official over which this Court has authority. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider a request for mandamus relief against Ms. Smith

. Accordingly, Relator's application for mandamus relief is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

.
Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6177

BRANDON LEE ALLEN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. TERESA M. POSTELL; ERIK A. HOOKS , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:17

- hc

- 02137

- BO )

Submitted : May 17 , 2018 Decided: May 21, 2018

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Brandon Lee Allen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brandon Lee Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive but unauthorized . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard b y 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 dist rict 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 Allen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Marvin L. RICE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WEST END MOTORS, CO., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 67338.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 12, 1995.

*542Lori R. Koch, Goffstein, Kraus, Sherman & Weinberg, St. Louis, for appellant.

Marvin L. Rice, Belleville, pro se.

KAROHL, Acting Presiding Judge.

West End Motors, Company [West End] appeals judgment for Marvin L. Rice [Rice] on his petition for breach of contract. After a judgment for Rice in small claims court, West End appealed. The trial judge entered a judgment for Rice in the amount of $1250 and costs. West End appeals claiming the court erred in entering a judgment for Rice solely because there was no evidence to support a finding of damages. We reverse.

Rice testified without counsel. He did not file a response brief before this court. Before reaching the merits we are constrained to observe the transcript of proceedings was made from a tape recording system and major portions of questions and answers were “inaudible.”

Rice testified he negotiated to purchase an automobile from West End. He arranged a bank loan to pay cash. After the agreement was reached, he requested West End to repair the brakes on the vehicle. During the time when the repairs were to be made, West End sold the vehicle to someone else. There was no evidence Rice had damages by reason of his deposit. His cheek was uncashed and the funds were returned. There was no evidence Rice incurred any expenses at the bank in connection with his loan, nor any evidence of value on the automobile in relation to the agreed purchase price. Hence, there was no evidence to support finding any loss or damage.

We will sustain a judgment in a court tried case unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). To state a cause of action for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege the following: 1) the existence of an enforceable contract between the parties; 2) mutual obligations arising under the terms of the contract; 3) defendant did not perform; and 4) plaintiff was thereby damaged from the breach. *Gilomen v. Southwest Missouri Truck Center, Inc.,*737 S.W.2d 499, 500-501 (Mo.App.1987). Damages are an essential element of a cause of action for breach of contract and must be proven. *Id.*at 501. The mere breach of a contract which causes no loss to plaintiff will not support a judgment. *Id.*

In reviewing Rice’s evidence in light of these rules, the judgment for Rice in the amount of $1250 and costs is reversed. Costs against Rice.

PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, *J.L,*concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2012 (the Report) of
PennantPark Investment Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Arthur H. Penn
|Arthur H. Penn    
|August 8, 2012
Exhibit 10.60


 


Vertex Employee Compensation Plan


 


On
an annual basis in the first quarter of the fiscal year the Management
Development and Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors adopts an
employee compensation plan for our officers and other employees, including our
named executive officers together with performance goals for that fiscal year.
The plan addresses three components of employee compensation—base salary,
performance bonus which serve as short-term incentives and equity grants which
serve as long-term incentive—that are designed to motivate, reward and retain
employees by aligning compensation with the achievement of strategic corporate
goals as well as individual performance objectives.


 


Upon
completion of each performance period (usually a calendar year), our Board of
Directors assigns us a performance rating on the basis of achievement of goals
for the company set by the Board early in the performance period. The amount
available for payment of performance bonuses is established on the basis of
this performance rating, and is allocated to employees on the basis of salary
tier and individual performance rating. The base salary of the executive
officers are set based on market and other competitive factors. Merit increases
to base salaries for other employees are made on the basis of individual
performance rating. Annual equity grants, made in the form of stock options,
restricted stock grants, or a combination of both are made on the basis of
salary tier and individual performance.


 


The
Management Development and Compensation Committee retains broad discretion to
determine the appropriate form and level of compensation, particularly for our
executives, on the basis of its assessment of our executives, the demand for
talent, our performance and other factors. Key corporate performance factors
generally include, among other things, achievement of specific financial
objectives, research productivity, development progression with respect to both
internal development efforts and collaborative development, and other aspects
of our performance. We reserve the right to modify the plan, and the key
corporate performance factors and criteria under the plan, at any time.


 


On
February 5, 2009, we determined the cash bonus awards related to the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 and annual salaries effective February
2009. The cash bonus awards for the following executive officers were:


 




	
  Name

  	
   

  	
  2008 Cash Bonus

  	
   

  	
  2009 Salary

  	
   

  
	
  Joshua S. Boger

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  978,750

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  950,151

  	
   

  
	
  Matthew W. Emmens

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,100,000

  	
   

  
	
  Kurt C. Graves

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  369,968

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  470,453

  	
   

  
	
  Peter Mueller

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  385,324

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  472,481

  	
   

  
	
  Ian F. Smith

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  391,500

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  463,500

  	
   

  
	
  Kenneth S. Boger

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  315,158

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  412,207
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3753

___________

Sammy Sharp, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner * [UNPUBLISHED]

of Social Security, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 13, 1998

 Filed: May 19, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On November 18, 1993, Sammy Sharp filed an application for supplemental

security income benefits and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.

Sharp alleged disability due to diabetes, chronic dermatitis, and weak spells, with an

onset date of April 1, 1993. His application was denied initially and upon

reconsideration. Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that

Sharp was disabled as of March 1, 1995, but that he was not disabled prior to that date.

After the Appeals Council denied Sharp’s request for review, the ALJ’s decision 
The Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

became the final determination of the Commissioner. Sharp appealed the

Commissioner’s decision to the district court, seeking an earlier onset date. The

1

district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner.

After a careful review of the administrative record, we conclude that substantial

evidence supports the Commissioner’s determination that Sharp was not disabled prior

to March 1, 1995. Because an extended opinion would serve no precedential value, we

affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s memorandum opinion. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MINUTES 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – TUCSON 

U.S. Magistrate Judge: Bernardo P. Velasco Date: July 13, 2018 

USA v. Scott Daniel Warren Case Number: CR-18-00223-001-TUC-RCC (BPV)

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Nathaniel Jacob Walters and Anna Wright

Attorney for Defendant: Gregory Kuykendall and Amy Knight, Retained 

Interpreter: N/A 

Defendant: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ 

MOTION HEARING: 

Matter is before the Court for continued hearing regarding defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 53). 

Border Patrol Agent John Marquez, previously sworn, returns to the stand for continued cross 

examination by Mr. Kuykendall. Defense exhibit 122 admitted under seal. Redirect completed by Mr. 

Walters. Witness steps down. 

Government calls Border Patrol Agent Brendan Burns, previously sworn. Examination by Ms. Wright, 

and cross examination by Mr. Kuykendall, and the witness is excused from the stand following redirect. 

Recess taken 11:50 am to 1:33 pm. 

Neither side elects to produce further evidence. Closing arguments heard. The Court admits the 

exhibits referenced this date, which include defense 112 & 114. All original admitted exhibits retained 

by the Court. Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 53) is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

Court Reporter Cheryl Cummings

Deputy Clerk Sara Jones 

Mtn Hrg 3 hr 10min 

Start: 9:33 AM 

Stop: 2:26 PM 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 102 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 2580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1512]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / 
Sunshine Act Meetings



[[Page 2580]]




FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:00 a.m. on 
Tuesday, January 23, 1996, the Board of Directors of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's corporate and supervisory activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Eugene A. Ludwig 
(Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Jonathan L. 
Fiechter (Acting Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), and Chairman 
Ricki Helfer, that Corporation business required its consideration of 
the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no 
earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest 
did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to 
public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a 
closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), 
(c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii) of the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 
U.S.C. 552b (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: January 23, 1996.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,

Deputy Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96-1512 Filed 1-24-96; 1:11 pm]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
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

Ruben Myran Johnson,

Petitioner,

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-00889-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Abey, filed pro se. (Doc. 58.)

Petitioner is represented by counsel. (See Doc. 6.) Counsel has exclusive authority 

to act on Petitioner’s behalf unless and until there is an order allowing counsel to 

withdraw. See LRCiv. 83.3(c)(2) (“Whenever a party has appeared by an attorney, that 

party cannot thereafter appear or act in that party’s own behalf in the cause, or take any 

steps therein, unless an order of substitution shall first have been made by the Court after 

notice to the attorney of each such party, and to the opposite party.”).

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED striking Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Stay and Abey. (Doc. 

58.)

Dated this 31st day of March, 2022.

Case 2:18-cv-00889-MTL Document 59 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial 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 Vision Acquisition II, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Berger, 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) 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.





/s/ David BergerDavid BergerPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 11, 2011
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antoinette COLLINS, Appellant. Antoinette COLLINS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 60740, 63168.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 10, 1993.

Judith C. LaRose, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jennifer A. Glancy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Antoinette Collins, appeals from a judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, for stealing, third offense. She was sentenced as a persistent offender to imprisonment for ten years. Defendant also appeals from the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

As to defendant’s direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The judgment of the trial court denying defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Dan Motsinger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Atlas Oil and Gas, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Atlas Oil and Gas, Inc.



| |        |                            
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| | By:    | /s/ DAN MOTSINGER          
| | Name:  | Dan Motsinger              
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| | Dated: | May 19, 2009
exv10w31






Exhibit 10.31




FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



This First Amendment to the Employment Agreement by and between Pierre V. Samec (“Employee”) and
Expedia, Inc., a Washington corporation (the “Company”), which was executed August 8, 2007 (herein
the “Agreement Effective Date”), is entered into effective as of October 27, 2008.




     WHEREAS, the Company desires that Employee will have the additional responsibility of managing
the role of Chief Information Officer who shall report to him, and Employee desires to accept such
additional responsibility,



     NOW, THEREFORE, Employee and the Company agree that in consideration of said additional
responsibility Section 2A of the Employment Agreement, which provides for a two-year Term, is
hereby extended by one year to be a total three-year Term, commencing from the Agreement Effective
Date. This First Amendment does not change any other term or condition of the Employment
Agreement.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	EXPEDIA, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By: /s/ Burke F. Norton	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name: Burke F. Norton	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title: Executive Vice President & General Counsel	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Date: November 10, 2008	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	EMPLOYEE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By: /s/ Pierre V. Samec	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name: Pierre V. Samec	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Date: November 10, 2008
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 721 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any major health 

care reform bill considered on the floor of the House should be available 

for viewing for 30 calendar days. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 

Mr. LEWIS of California submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

any major health care reform bill considered on the floor 

of the House should be available for viewing for 30 

calendar days. 

Whereas the House of Representatives is considering major 

health reform legislation that will affect the lives of every 

American; 

Whereas over the August district work period Members of the 

House of Representatives heard from overwhelming numbers of constituents about potential changes to the health 

care delivery system; 

Whereas health care spending in the United States constitutes more than 17 percent of gross domestic product 

(GDP); 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 721 IH 

Whereas the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 

Federal budget deficit for 2009 will total 

$1,600,000,000,000, which is 11.2 percent of gross domestic product; and 

Whereas the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 

early drafts of health care reform legislation could add 

$239,000,000,000 to the deficit over ten years: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that, due to the potential for sweeping 

3 changes to our Nation’s health care delivery system, any 

4 major health care reform bill that comes to the floor of 

5 the House of Representatives in final form should be avail6 able to Members to view in hard copy and available online 

7 to the public in a downloadable and searchable format for 

8 30 calendar days prior to the final vote on such bill. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS