alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

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

de Haan Law Firm, PLLC and Kezhaya Law PLC

101 E. Pennington St. 1202 NE McClain Rd.

Suite 201 Bentonville, Arkansas 72712

Tucson, Arizona 85701 phone: (479) 431-6112

Telephone: (520) 358-4089 fax: (479) 282-2892

Facsimile: (520) 628-4275 email: matt@kezhaya.law

Stuart P. de Haan, State Bar No. 26664 Matthew A. Kezhaya, phv, Ark. Bar # 2014161

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

THE SATANIC TEMPLE, INC., 

MICHELLE SHORTT, 

UNITED FEDERATION OF CHURCHES,

LLC (dba “The Satanic Temple,”)

ADVERSARIAL TRUTH LLC (dba “The 

Satanic Temple – Arizona Chapter,”) and

THE SATANIC TEMPLE, a voluntary group 

of persons, without an Arizona charter, 

formed by mutual consent for the purpose of 

promoting a common enterprise or 

prosecuting a common objective

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, 

Defendant,

 Case No. 18-cv-00621-DGC

 Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that The Satanic Temple, Inc., Michelle Shortt, United 

Federation of Churches, LLC (dba “The Satanic Temple,”) Adversarial Truth LLC (dba 

“The Satanic Temple – Arizona Chapter,”) and The Satanic Temple, a voluntary group of 

persons, without an Arizona charter, formed by mutual consent for the purpose of 

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 96 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 2
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

promoting a common enterprise or prosecuting a common objective (collectively

“Plaintiffs” or “Appellants,”) hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit from the order and judgment entered in this action on February 6, 2020.

Respectfully submitted on February 28, 2020,

On behalf of Plaintiffs

By /s/ Stuart P. de Haan and /s/ Matthew A. Kezhaya

Stuart P. de Haan, 

AZ Bar No. 026664

Matthew A. Kezhaya, 

AR Bar No. 2014161 (pro hac vice)

Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs

de Haan Law Firm, PLLC

101 E Pennington Avenue, Suite 201

Tucson, Arizona 85701

1202 NE McClain Rd

Bentonville AR 72712

Phone (520) 358-4089 (479) 431-6112

Fax (520) 628-4275 (479) 282-2892

Email stu.dehaan@gmail.com matt@kezhaya.law

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on February 28, 2020 I electronically transmitted this document to the 

Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic 

Filing to the appropriate CM/ECF registrants. /s/ Stuart de Haan

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 96 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 925 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 925

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 21, 2010.
Whereas aviators in the Armed Forces, including pilots, navigators, bombardiers, 
        weapons control officers, and other aircraft crew members, have served 
        the United States with great courage and distinction in every major 
        conflict during the 20th and 21st centuries;
Whereas thousands of aviators in the Armed Forces have been forced down while 
        performing their missions, as a result of hostile action, mechanical 
        failures, or other problems;
Whereas many of these aviators overcame long odds and great hardships to return 
        to their units and resume their service to the United States;
Whereas some of these aviators tried to evade enemy forces, but were captured, 
        and some of these aviators were compelled to endure arduous confinement, 
        retaliation, and even death as a result of their efforts to evade 
        capture or escape;
Whereas these aviators faced the added responsibility of maintaining the secrecy 
        of their escape and evasion methods in order to protect the lives of 
        people who assisted them and other aviators; and
Whereas the need to maintain secrecy initially may have prevented these aviators 
        from being publically recognized for their meritorious service in 
        avoiding capture, in escaping from captivity, or for their efforts to 
        escape: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
            (1) aviators in the United States Armed Forces who, as a result of 
        hostile action, mechanical failures, or other problems, were forced to 
        evade or escape enemy capture, were captured but subsequently escaped to 
        return to their units and resume their service to the United States, or 
        were compelled to endure arduous confinement, retaliation, and even 
        death as a result of their efforts to evade capture or escape should be 
        publically recognized for their extraordinary service; and
            (2) the Secretaries of the military departments should consider 
        these aviators for appropriate recognition within their branch of the 
        Armed Forces.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41034

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIAN HERNANDEZ AVELINO, also known as Humberto Manuel

Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-97-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Julian Hernandez Avelino

raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Newson,

515 F.3d 374, 378-79 (5th Cir. 2008), which held that the Government may

decline to move for an additional one-point reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b)

based on the defendant’s refusal to waive his right to appeal. Accordingly, the

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-41034 Document: 00512346712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
No. 12-41034

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-41034 Document: 00512346712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
Exhibit 10.41
 SEVENTH AMENDMENT
TO THE
SITHE STABLE PENSION ACCOUNT PLAN
 th
 W I T N E S S E T H:
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,




---



##### 



I.
 Section 1.4
  For Plan Year
    
    Applicable Percentage2008
    
    
    20
    %2009
    
    
    40
    %2010
    
    
    60
    %2011
    
    
    80
    %
 II.
 Article I Section 1.35A
 QuaIified Optional Survivor Annuity
  2




---



##### 



III.
 Section 4. 2(b)
 IV.
 Section 4.3(a)(4)(B)
  V.
 Section 4.3(b)
 VI.
 Appendix B, Section B8.1
  VII.
   3




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 Sithe Energies, Inc.By:
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Title: Chairman, Dynegy Benefit Committee  4
#### NEWLY WEDS FOODS, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS CREAMERY, INC., Defendant/Respondent.

No. 55022.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

May 30, 1989.

Robert M. Hunt, II, William Whealen, and S. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, for plaintiff/appellant.

Gregory G. Fenlon, Clayton, for defendant/respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued defendant on an open account. Defendant filed an affirmative defense of satisfaction of any indebtedness and a counterclaim for recovery of over-payments. The jury returned a verdict for defendant on plaintiffs claim and for defendant on defendant’s counterclaim in the amount of $5,000. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The “evidence in support of [the] jury verdict is not insufficient”, “no error of law appears”, and “an opinion would have no precedential value.” Rule 84.16(b).
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60374 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ALLEN BRICE , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mi s sissippi USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 2

- 2

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Allen Brice appeals his jury trial convictions on seven counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation and presentation of a false tax return and his cumulative sentence of 63 months of imprisonment. See 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)

. Reviewing de novo, we affi rm. See United States v. Jara

- Favela , 686 F.3d 289, 299 (5th Cir. 2012)

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 13, 2018 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60374 Document: 00514428558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2018No. 17

- 60374

2 The convictions resulted from Brice’s work preparing income tax returns in the office of Flash Financial, a Gulfport, Mississippi, business owned by his

co
- defendant, Jeremi Washingt on. Each count charged that Brice did willfully aid and assist in, and procure, counsel, and advise the preparation and presentation to the Internal Revenue Service of a materially false tax return. In its jury instructions, the district court stated tha t § 7206 makes it a crime for anyone to willfully aid or assist in the preparation of a document under the Internal Revenue laws that is false or fraudulent as to any material matter. We reject Brice ’s argument that the district court err oneously permit ted

a co nstructive amendment of the indictment by not requiring the Government to prove all matters alleged conjunctively in each count of conviction; the district court’s jury charge comports with our precedent. See United States v.
Bennett , 874 F.3d 236 , 257 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Holley , 831 F.3d 322, 328 n.14 ( 5th Cir. 2016). We see no merit in Brice’s contention that a defendant is prejudiced if the Government is not required to commit, before trial, to what Brice calls t he indictment’s material elements t hat that the Government intends to prove . Our caselaw amply alerts a defendant to prepare a defense against each and every means of violating a disjunctive statute alleged conjunctively in an indictment, as proof of even one of them suf fices for a conviction. See Bennett , 874 F.3d at 257; Holley , 831 F.3d at 328

. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-60374 Document: 00514428558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2018
CV-18-155-TUC-CKJ

Case 4:18-cv-00155-CKJ Document 5-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:18-cv-00155-CKJ Document 5-1 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 28, 2011

p0421 

# Order

April 28, 2011

142089

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142089 COA: 299297 Macomb CC: 2 007-005849-FH CEDRIC JAMES SIMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 23, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of the i ssue whether the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to register under the Sex Offenders Registrati on Act, MCL 28.721 et seq

. The Court of Appeals currently has before it the case of People v Gentile , Docket No. 295570, a case we remanded for considerati on as on leave granted on November 24, 2010, and that involves an issue similar to that presented in th is case. We note that the court’s disposition in Gentile may be instructive in resolvi ng the issue specified in this order. In all other respects, leave to appe al is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31556-31557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15758]



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

[[Page 31557]]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[NAFTA-00819 & 00819A]


Thomas & Betts Corporation Electrical Department, PA; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for NAFTA Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 USC 2273), the Department 
of Labor issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment 
Assistance on March 6, 1996, applicable to workers of Thomas & Betts 
Corporation, Electrical Department, located in Montgomeryville, 
Pennsylvania. The notice was published in the Federal Register on March 
25, 1996 (61 FR 12101).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. Findings show that 
workers of the subject firms' North Wales production facility were 
inadvertently excluded from the certification. The workers produce 
injection molded electrical fittings, components and accessories.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Thomas & Betts Corporation, Electrical Department who where 
adversely affected by increased imports from Mexico or Canada. 
Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to include 
workers of Thomas & Betts located in North Wales.
    The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-00819 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Thomas & Betts Corporation, Electrical 
Department, Montgomeryville (NAFTA-00819) and North Wales (NAFTA-
00819A), Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated 
from employment on or after February 8, 1995, are eligible to apply 
for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 7th day of June 1996.
Curtis K. Kooser,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-15758 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David L. Osborn, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Hudson's Grill International, Inc.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated 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 registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as
of the end of the periods presented in this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)	presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

|Date:	April 14, 2008 | /s/David L. Osborn

[Signature]

President
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------

f\sec\o01.071231
Exhibit 10.2 -- Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment, dated as of December 11, 2008, amends the
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of June 7, 2007 (the “Agreement”) between General Dynamics Corporation (the “Corporation”) and Nicholas D. Chabraja. 
 Section 17 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. The intent of the parties is that payments and benefits under this Agreement comply with
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) to the extent subject thereto, and, accordingly, to the maximum extent permitted, this Agreement shall be interpreted and administered to be in compliance
therewith. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, Mr. Chabraja shall not be considered to have terminated employment with the Corporation for purposes of this Agreement until Mr. Chabraja would be considered to have
incurred a “separation from service” from the Corporation within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code. To the extent required to avoid an accelerated or additional tax under Section 409A of the Code, amounts reimbursable to
Mr. Chabraja under this Agreement shall be paid to Mr. Chabraja on or before the last day of the year following the year in which the expense was incurred and the amount of expenses eligible for reimbursement (and in-kind benefits provided
to the Mr. Chabraja) during any one year may not effect amounts reimbursable or provided in any subsequent year. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, to the extent required in order to avoid accelerated taxation and/or
tax penalties under Section 409A of the Code amounts that would otherwise be payable and benefits that would otherwise be provided pursuant to this Agreement during the six-month period immediately following Mr. Chabraja’s termination
of employment shall instead be paid on the first business day after the date that is six months following Mr. Chabraja’s “separation from service” within the meaning of Section 409A. Any amount the payment of which is
delayed in accordance with the preceding sentence shall be paid with interest at an annual rate equal to the prime rate (as determined by the Northern Trust Company of Chicago from time to time) from the date on which such amount would otherwise
have been paid until the actual date of payment. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to Employment Agreement to be executed, and
Mr. Chabraja has executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. 
  

							
		 		 	GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION
				
	 /s/ Millie A. Miller
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Walter M. Oliver

	Witness	 		 		 	Walter M. Oliver, Senior Vice President, Human Resources & Administration
				
	 /s/ David A. Savner
	 		 		 	 /s/ Nicholas D. Chabraja

	Witness	 		 		 	Nicholas D. Chabraja
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 

American Muslims for Palestine, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Arizona State University, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00670-PHX-JJT 

ORDER 

 At issue is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Hearing (Doc. 10) to which Defendants’ filed a 

Response (Doc. 17). 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file any reply to Defendants’ Response 

(Doc. 17) by 3:00 pm Arizona time Friday, March 16, 2018. 

 Dated this 15th day of March, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 19 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 1
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

NO. 2023 KW 0964

DARRYL COMBS JANUARY 18, 2024

In Re: Darryl Combs, applying for supervisory writs, 19th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

No. 07- 02- 0280. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED AS MOOT. The records of the East Baton Rouge

Parish Clerk of Court' s Office reflect that the district court

acted on relator' s motion for production of documents on August

31, 2023. 

JMG

WRC

WIL

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

D DUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
COURT OF APPEALS

CLERK'S OFFICE

San Antonio, Texas.

Cause SWy^l^vs State.

Please return this card when the execution of the enclosed mandate has been

carried out.

Executed on ^ by _AU^ S •'^UYXfU^i^

Sincerely yours, Title

CMj^