alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-04-0352-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B AUGUST 3, 2004

______________________________ TEDDY ROBINSON, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 1 37TH DI STRICT COURT OF LU BBOCK COU NTY; NO. 88-408,306; H ONORABLE CEC IL G. PURY EAR, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBE LL, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPIN ION TeddyRobinson attempts to appeal the deni al of a “Mot ion for New Trial /Time Reduction”fo llowing his conviction for murder. Finding we have no jurisdiction, we will dismiss. Appellant

was found guilty of murder by a jury which also assess ed punishment of 99 years confinement. Sentence was imposed December

7, 1988. No noti ce of appeal was filed from that judg ment. Appellant fil ed his “Moti on for New Trial/Time Reduction” in1 The same deadlines appl ied under former Rule 41(b)( 1) applicabl e atthe time of appellant’s conviction. -2- the trial cour

t July 1, 2004. The motion complains of errors in his trial . The court denied the motion the same day . He filed a noti ce of appeal from that or der on July

12, 2004. A timely not ice of appeal is a prerequi site toa court of appeals ’ jurisdi ction and in the absence of

jurisdic tion it can ta ke no action other than to di smiss the appeal . Slaton v. State , 981 S.W .2d 2 08, 2 10 (T ex. Cr im.App. 1998). A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is impo sed unless a timely motion for ne w trial is filed, in which case ap peal must be perfected within 90 days after t he imposition of sentence. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). 1 A motion for new trial must be filed no later than 30 days after impositio n of the sentence. Tex . R. App. P. 21. 4. Appellant’s motion, filed over fifteen years after

imposition of hi s sentence, fails to invoke this co urt’s jurisdiction. Lacking ju risdicti on over the a ppeal, we di smiss it.

Per Curiam Do not publish .
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








I, John M. Cochrane, Senior Vice
President and Interim Chief Financial Officer of PMA Capital Corporation, do
hereby certify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the information contained in the Annual
Report of PMA Capital Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMA Capital
Corporation.








/s/ John M. CochraneJohn
      M. CochraneSenior
      Vice President andInterim
      Chief Financial OfficerMarch
      16, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.02



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
pertaining to the 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-55827),
the 1998 Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-56349), the 1997 Stock Option Plan
(Form S-8 No. 333-49561), the 1995 Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-93048),
and the 1987 Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-77060) of ATMI, Inc. and in the
Registration Statements pertaining to the resale of shares of common stock by
certain stockholders of ATMI, Inc. (Form S-3 No. 333-82089 and Form S-3 No. 333-
94641) of our report dated May 1, 1998, relating to the consolidated financial
statements of NOW Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries appearing on page 3 of
this Form 10-K/A. It should be noted, however, that such financial statements
are not included separately in the Form 10-K/A.





                                                /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 28, 2000
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, David Neuberg, the Chief Executive Officer of Sentra Consulting
      Corp. (the "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and
      solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
      Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





**Sentra
                Consulting Corp.**Dated:
                February 19, 2008
            
            /s/
                David NeubergDavid
                NeubergChief
                Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### TENNECO OIL COMPANY, Fina Oil and Chemical Company, W.L. Payne, individually and as trustee for Tatsumi U.S.A. Corporation, and Tatsumi U.S.A. Corporation v. GALVESTON TERMINALS, INC., successor in interest to Galveston Oil Terminals, Inc.

No. 95-0949.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 31, 1996.

Joint and agreed motion for judgment to effectuate settlement, filed on May 7,1996, is granted in part. The applications for writ of error, previously granted on March 7, 1996, are granted without reference to the merits; the judgments of the courts below are set aside without reference to the merits, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties.

OWEN, J., not sitting.
exv10w19






Exhibit 10.19




AMENDMENT AGREEMENT




     This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to (a) the Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (the “RSU
Agreement”), dated December 18, 2008, between Expedia, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and Dara
Khosrowshahi (the “Eligible Individual”) and (b) the other arrangements contemplated by Paragraph 7
below, is made and entered into as of the 31st day of December, 2008, by and between the
Company and Executive.



     1. Section 2 of the RSU Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:




2. SETTLEMENT OF UNITS.




As soon as practicable (but in no event later than five business
days) after any Restricted Stock Units have vested and are no longer
subject to the Restriction Period, such Restricted Stock Units shall
be settled . Subject to Paragraph 8 (pertaining to the withholding
of taxes), for each Restricted Stock Unit settled pursuant to this
Paragraph 2, the Corporation shall (i) if the Eligible Individual is
employed within the United States, issue one share of Common Stock
for each vested Restricted Stock Unit and cause to be delivered to
the Eligible Individual one or more unlegended, freely-transferable
stock certificates in respect of such shares issued upon settlement
of the vested Restricted Stock Units or (ii) if the Eligible
Individual is employed outside the United States, pay, or cause to
be paid, to the Eligible Individual an amount of cash equal to the
Fair Market Value of one share of Common Stock for each vested
Restricted Stock Unit settled at such time. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Corporation shall be entitled to hold the shares or
cash issuable upon settlement of Restricted Stock Units that have
vested until the Corporation or the agent selected by the
Corporation to manage the Plan under which the Restricted Stock
Units have been issued (the “Agent”) shall have received from the
Eligible Individual a duly executed Form W-9 or W-8, as applicable.



     2. Section 16 of the RSU Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as set forth
below:




16. RESERVED.



     3. For the avoidance of doubt, the Corporation acknowledges that at least one of the
Performance Goals has been met as of the date of this Amendment



     4. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the RSU
Agreement remain in full force and effect and are unmodified hereby.



[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]




-1-









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Eligible Individual has hereunto set his hand, the Corporation has
caused these presents to be executed in its name on its behalf, all as of the day and year first
above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL

 	 
	 	/s/ Dara Khosrowshahi
 	 
	 	Dara Khosrowshahi 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	EXPEDIA, INC.

 	 
	 	/s/ Burke F. Norton
 	 
	 	Name:  	Burke F. Norton 	 
	 	Title:  	Executive Vice President & General Counsel 	 



-2-
EX-10.(P)





Exhibit (10)(p)


Amendment


to the

Defined Benefit 
 Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan

(Amended and Restated as of December 1, 2007)


Whereas, CMS Energy Corporation maintains the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the
“Plan”); and



Whereas, the Board of Directors of CMS Energy Corporation has authorized Officers of the Company
to modify the Plan to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 409A) and
as advisable to reflect guidance under Section 409A; and



Whereas, under the applicable Section 409A regulations the Plan may either accept the default
standard for determining when a Separation from Service has occurred or it may adopt a standard
of up to 49% of the average level of services performed over the prior 36 month period of time;
and



Whereas, legal counsel, human resources and the tax department recommend adoption of a 45%
standard to provide a reasonable basis for complying with the Section 409A requirement.



Now Therefore, The definition of Separation from Service in Section I of the Plan is amended to
read as follows:




	 	 	 
	“Separation from
Service”

	 	Means the Employee retires or otherwise has a separation from service
from the company as defined under Code Section 409A and any applicable
regulations. The Plan Administrator will determine, consistent with
the requirements of Code Section 409A and any applicable regulations,
to what extent a person on a leave of absence, including on paid sick
leave pursuant to Company policy, has incurred a Separation from
Service. Notwithstanding the above, a Separation from Service will
occur consistent with the requirements of Code Section 409A when it is
reasonably anticipated that the future level of bona fide services
provided by the Employee (whether as an employee or as an independent
contractor) will be no more than 45% of the average level of bona fide
services performed by the Employee (whether as an employee or as an
independent contractor) over the immediately preceding 36 month period
(or the full period of services, if less than 36 months).





1








 





	 	 	 
	Signed this 21 day of December, 2008.
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	CMS Energy Corporation:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ John M. Butler
 

John M. Butler

	 	 
	Senior Vice President — Human Resources and Administrative Services
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Attest:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Catherine M. Reynolds
 

Catherine M. Reynolds

	 	 
	Vice President and Secretary
	 	 







2
#### Mohammed A. KABIR, M.D., Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent.

No. WD 49746.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 5, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 29, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 24, 1995.

Robert P. Baine, Jr., Baine & McHugh, Florissant, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Gary L. Gardner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., LOWENSTEIN and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Mohammed A. Kabir, M.D., appeals the judgment following a jury trial in the Cole County Circuit Court denying his claim against the Missouri Department of Social Services (“Department”) for breach of contract for terminating Dr. Kabir’s participation in the Missouri Medicaid program. The jury denied Dr. Kabir’s claim for lost income against the Department and awarded the Department $9,140.04 on its counterclaim against Dr. Kabir.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
----

EXHIBIT 31.2 

I, Mislav Pavelic, in my capacity indicated below, certifythat: 

1.

 I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10] QSB of Opencell Biodmed, Inc. (the "Registrant"); 
2. 

Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

3. 

Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 

4. 

I am responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a] 15(e) and 15d] 15(e)) for the Registrant and have: 
a) 

designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; 

b) 

evaluated theeffectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and 

c) 

disclosed inthis report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant's internal control over financial reporting; 

5. 

Ihave disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee ofRegistrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) 

all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

b) 

any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: July 15, 2010
/s/ Mislav Pavelic                                  
 
Mislav Pavelic, President
 
(as Principal Financial Officer)
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 273-2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 273-2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 273-2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 273-2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 273-2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 273-2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 273-2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 273-2 Filed 08/20/18 Page 8 of 8
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

Gregory J. Kuykendall, Bar # 012508

Amy P. Knight, Bar # 031374

KUYKENDALL & ASSOCIATES

531 S Convent Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 792-8033

greg@kuykendall-law.com

amyknight@kuykendall-law.com

Attorneys for Defendant Scott Daniel Warren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT DANIEL WARREN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.CR-18-00223-001-TUC-RCC

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

CONTINUE TRIAL

It is expected that excludable delay under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 

3161(h)(7)(A) may occur as a result of this motion or of an order based thereon.

Defendant, Scott Daniel Warren, by and through his pro bono attorneys

Gregory J. Kuykendall and Amy P. Knight, respectfully requests that this Court 

vacate the January 8, 2019 trial date. Defendant requests that the Court convene a 

scheduling conference in conjunction with the currently scheduled motion hearing 

on January 14, 2019 to select a new trial date. 
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

This proposed continuance is being requested because significant issues 

remain to be resolved before a trial can be conducted in this case. At this Court 

knows, substantive motions remain pending, including a motion to suppress key 

evidence (fully briefed since September 4, 2018), a motion to reconsider denial of 

the motion to dismiss under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (filed 

September 26, 2018), and a motion to dismiss based on international law (fully 

briefed since December 12, 2018). In addition, the defense has recently asked this 

Court to reconsider an order entered by the Magistrate Judge concerning discovery 

on a selective enforcement claim, and this Court has set that motion for hearing on 

January 14, 2019—after the current trial date. Whatever the outcome of that 

motion, the defense will still require time to file appropriate substantive motions 

based on the Government’s disclosure regarding selective enforcement. 

Counsel for the Government have been consulted and have no objection to 

this motion. Undersigned counsel avows that this request for a continuance has not 

been made for purposes of harassment or delay.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20th day of December, 2018.

By /s/ Amy P. Knight

Gregory J. Kuykendall

Amy P. Knight

531 S Convent Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85701

Attorneys for Defendant Scott 

Daniel Warren
3

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on December 20th, 2018, I electronically transmitted a PDF 

version of this document to the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System for filing 

and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF 

registrants: 

Nathaniel J. Walters, Esq. (email: Nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov) 

Anna R. Wright, Esq. (email: anna.wright@usdoj.gov) 

United States Attorney’s Office 

405 W. Congress, Suite 4800 

Tucson, AZ 85701
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 166 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Devan Zuniga Johns, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-18-08092-PCT-DMF

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant appeared before this Court on a Petition for Revocation of Supervised

Release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the

Petition and file in determining whether defendant should be released on conditions set by

the Court.

The Court finds that defendant has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

does not pose a serious flight risk pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure.

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a serious

flight risk and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure his appearance at future proceedings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2019
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS  

7 DAYSH[SHGLWHG  

DAILY

 

HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

'$<6

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Andrew C. Stone (602) 514-7500 09/10/2021

U.S. Attorney's Office

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800 Phoenix AZ 85004

CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB Susan M. Brnovich 9/8/2021

U.S. v. Michael Lacey, et al. Phoenix AZ

✔

✔

Trial (AM session) 09/08/2021

✔

✔

andrew.stone@usdoj.gov; marjorie.dieckman@usdoj.gov

s/Andrew C. Stone (R21AZX90249)

09/10/2021

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1296 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 1
Executive Officers' Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.18 
 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. 
 EXECUTIVE OFFICERS’ COMPENSATION FOR 2008 AND 2009

 SUMMARY SHEET 
  

											
	 Name
	  	 Position
	  	Year	  	Base Salary	  	Bonus (1)
	 Gary E. Holdren
	  	Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President	  	2008
 2009
	  	$
 $
	1,150,000
 1,150,000
	  	$
 $
	0
 1,150,000

					
	 Daniel P. Broadhurst
	  	 Vice President,
 Chief Operating Officer
	  	2008
 2009
	  	$
 $
	600,000
 600,000
	  	$
 $
	0
 600,000

					
	 Gary L. Burge
	  	 Vice President,
 Chief Financial Officer
 and Treasurer
	  	2008
 2009
	  	$
 $
	400,000
 400,000
	  	$
 $
	0
 400,000

					
	 Natalia Delgado
	  	 Vice President,
 General Counsel and
 Corporate Secretary
	  	2008
 2009
	  	$
 $
	325,000
 325,000
	  	$
 $
	0
 325,000

					
	 Mary M. Sawall
	  	 Vice President,
 Human Resources
	  	2008
 2009
	  	$
 $
	325,000
 325,000
	  	$
 $
	0
 325,000


  

	(1)	Bonuses are performance-based and there is no stated maximum. Bonuses for 2009 are based on targets and actual amounts paid may be greater or smaller than the amounts indicated.