alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Terry Edward McSHAN, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 55593.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 30, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 11, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 12, 1989.

Cheryl Rafert, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert Y. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

*847CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Movant, Terry E. McShan, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant had previously entered a plea of guilty to the charges of second degree murder and assault in the second degree and had been sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of twenty years and seven years, respectively. We affirm.

On appeal, movant alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his appointed counsel failed to investigate the State’s witnesses and otherwise failed to adequately prepare movant’s defense. Movant contends that his fear of going to trial without an adequately prepared defense induced his plea of guilty, thus rendering it involuntary.

The issue of effectiveness of counsel is material only to the extent it affects whether a plea has been voluntarily and knowingly made. *Smith v. State,*743 S.W.2d 900, 901 (Mo.App.1988). In the instant case, movant, while under oath during the guilty plea proceeding, unequivocally indicated that he was entering a plea of guilty of his own free will. He further indicated that he was completely satisfied with the representation he had received. Moreover, movant expressly admitted that he had committed the crimes with which he had been charged. Movant was given ample opportunity to express to the court any reservations he may have had concerning his guilty plea.

Movant, however, directs our attention to a letter received by the trial court in which he expressed dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel prior to the plea proceeding. It is clear that movant’s sworn testimony during his plea proceeding expressly disavowed such previous dissatisfaction.

The transcript of movant’s guilty plea proceeding directly refutes his allegation that his plea was involuntary. Rule 24.035 does not entitle movant to an evidentiary hearing under such circumstances. *See Smith,*743 S.W.2d at 902. The motion court did not clearly err in denying mov-ant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. *See*Rule 24.035®. Movant’s point is denied.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed.

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADIL SHAFI.,

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

Counter-Plaintiff/ Third Party Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-10454

v.

FREDERICK WEIDINGER and

BRAINTECH, INC.,

Third Party Defendant/ Counter-Defendant.

____________________________________________/

ORDER

On June 3, 2011, Braintech filed a motion in limine to preclude Shafi from

introducing the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) into evidence at trial. (Doc. 108). 

Shafi responded that the Employment Agreement is incorporated by reference and

integrated into the SPA. Shafi says the notice provision of the SPA applies to the

Employment Agreement. 

The issues Shafi raises in his response are disputed issues of law which have

not been fully briefed or previously decided by this Court. 

Braintech is directed to file a reply to Shafi’s response. Braintech must address

Shafi’s arguments regarding the relationship between the Employment Agreement and

the SPA, and the application of the SPA notice provision to the Employment Agreement. 

Braintech must also address what remedy is appropriate should a jury find that Shafi

was terminated for “good cause,” but without “notice.” Braintech is ordered to file this

reply by noon on Friday, June 17, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Document 114 Filed 06/14/11 Page 1 of 2
Shafi is directed to file a sur-reply to Braintech’s reply. Shafi must address

Braintech’s arguments, including those disputed issues of law identified in this Order. 

Shafi is ordered to file this sur-reply by noon on Monday, June 20, 2011.

The briefs must comply with all local rules. Relevant passages of exhibits

must be highlighted on the Judge’s courtesy copy.

No extensions to these dates will be allowed.

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: June 14, 2011

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 14,

2011.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Document 114 Filed 06/14/11 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re: STEVEN D. KOWALSKE and

LINDA KOWALSKE,

Debtors,

___________________________/

CHRISTOPHER J. TRAINOR,

CHRISTOPHER J. TRAINOR, as

TRUSTEE for THE ZACHARY TRAINOR

REVOCABLE TRUST, ANGIE TRAINOR,

and ANGIE TRAINOR, as TRUSTEE for

THE ASHLEY TRAINOR REVOCABLE

TRUST,

Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

STEVEN D. KOWALSKE and LINDA L.

KOWALSKE,

Defendants/Appellees

___________________________/

Case No. 08-14774

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

(Bankruptcy No. 08-50195)

JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court as an appeal from the United States Bankruptcy

Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the Honorable

Walter Shapero’s October 30, 2008 decision denying their Motion for Relief from the

Automatic Stay filed in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding of Debtors Steven and

Linda Kowalske. In an Opinion and Order issued on this date, the Court affirmed Judge

Shapero’s decision.

2:08-cv-14774-PJD-MJH Doc # 17 Filed 06/16/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 146
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that this appeal is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATE:June 16, 2009 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Vincent M. Farougi, Esq.

Donald C. Wilson, Esq.

Nathaniel H. Herdt, Esq.

Wendy Turner Lewis, Esq.

Hon. Walter Shapero

2:08-cv-14774-PJD-MJH Doc # 17 Filed 06/16/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 147
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10376 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

–

Appellee

,

v ersus

JUAN CARLOS CRUZ

, a lso k nown as Cruzito,

Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CR

- 236

- 3

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Cruz has moved for leave to

* 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 March 17, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10376 Document: 00513427595 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2016No. 15

- 10376

2 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).

Cruz h a s not filed a response. We have re viewed counsel’s brief and the rele

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

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

Accord ingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, couns el is excused
from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH

C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-10376 Document: 00513427595 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2016
exv10wjj









Exhibit 10(jj)




U.S. PARTICIPANT ADDENDUM NO. 1




TO THE POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC. DEFERRED SHARE UNIT PLAN

FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS



In order to comply with the provisions of Section 409A of the Code (as hereafter defined) as it
relates to U.S. Participants (as hereafter defined), the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
Deferred Share Unit Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “Plan”) as it pertains to U.S.
Participants is hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2005, as follows:





	1.	 	Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding a new sentence at the end thereof to read
as follows:
	 
	 	 	“Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any Participant who is subject
to U.S. income tax (“U.S. Participant”), the Participant’s election to defer any
portion of the Annual Retainer Fee for the year in which the Participant became
an employee shall remain in effect through the last day of such year.”
	 
	2.	 	The second paragraph of Section 5(b) of the Plan is hereby amended by adding, immediately
before the period in the first sentence thereof, the following:
	 
	 	 	“, which, in the case of any U.S. Participant, shall apply to the portion of the
Annual Retainer Fee attributable to services performed after the election
becomes irrevocable.”
	 
	3.	 	Section 8 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding, immediately after the third sentence
thereof, a new sentence to read as follows:
	 
	 	 	“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Entitlement Date of any U.S. Participant
shall be, and payment to any U.S. Participant shall be made within sixty (60)
days after the last day of the calendar quarter in which his Termination of
Board Service occurs. If a U.S. Participant is a Specified Employee (within the
meaning of the regulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, of
1986, as amended (“Code”)) on the date of his Termination of Board Service,
payment to such Participant will be made on the first business day that is six
months following his Termination of Board Service.”




EXECUTED on 19 day of December, 2008.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Joseph A. Podwika
 	 
	 	Title Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1211 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 143
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1211

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, as the ``Jack F. Kemp Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 9, 2009

Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                             July 30, 2009

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, as the ``Jack F. Kemp Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. JACK F. KEMP POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Jack F. Kemp Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jack F. 
Kemp Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 143

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1211

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, as the ``Jack F. Kemp Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 30, 2009

                       Reported without amendment
```
ex10_24.htm


    
      
        

      
Exhibit 10.24

    


    


    2009
INCENTIVE PLAN FOR CERTAIN KEY EMPLOYEES

    


    The
Company has a discretionary annual incentive program under which exempt salaried
employees (other than the Chairman) may earn cash payments based on a percentage
of base annual salary.  The actual percent is based on a variety of
guidelines including the performance levels of the respective business units
measured by operating income subject to certain adjustments.

    


    The
payment to an employee is based upon (i) their assigned grade level, (ii) actual
company earnings achieved relative to a pre-determined target, which is adjusted
upward if company performance exceeds target and reduced if company performance
is less than target, (iii) base salary paid during the fiscal year, and (iv)
discretionary ranking of the individual's performance.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rohat Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Delara Hussaini, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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 Company.

By: /s/ Delara HussainiDelara Hussaini
  Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial OfficerDate: August 31, 2007
ACCEPTED 06-14-00182-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 1/26/2015 4:09:02 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
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**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WebSafety, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland W. Day II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1.

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

2.

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

 

By:  */s/Rowland W. Day II.*

Rowland W. Day II

Chief Financial Officer

 

Dated: August 19, 2013

This certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to WebSafety, Inc. and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Michael K. KITREL, Defendant-Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent.

No. 63054.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 17, 1993.

Ellen A. Blau, St. Louis, for defendant-movant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David B. Cosgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

*877Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Michael Kitrel, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion, without an evidentiary hearing.

The judgment of the motion court 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 99.1





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, David Sikora, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Pervasive Software Inc. on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Pervasive Software Inc.





By:

/s/    DAVID SIKORADavid Sikora President and
Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

United States of America,

Plaintiff Case No. 09-10406

Hon. Robert H. Cleland

-vConstance J. Standish aka 

Constance J. Price aka

Constance J. Persails,

Defendant

________________________________________________________________

ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE OF PROCESS BY SUBSTITUTED MEANS

________________________________________________________________

The plaintiff has filed an Ex-Parte Motion for an order permitting

substituted service of process and an affidavit by a process server reciting the

unsuccessful attempts at service of the summons and compliant. The court finds

that service of process cannot reasonably be made in a manner set forth under

Michigan law, and that the substitute means requested reasonably are calculated

to give the defendant actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be

heard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1); Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(I)(1).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Motion for order

permitting substitute service of process [dkt # 3] is GRANTED.

It is ORDERED that the plaintiff may serve the defendant, Constance J.

Standish aka Constance J. Price aka Constance J. Persails, with the summons

and a copy of the complaint by:

2:09-cv-10406-RHC-DAS Doc # 4 Filed 04/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 16
(A) Posting a copy thereof, along with a copy of this petition and order for

substituted service of process, at the defendant’s residence at: 13358

Seymour, Montrose, Michigan 48457;

(B) Mailing a copy of the same by certified mail (return receipt requested)

to the defendant’s residence noted above; and 

(C)Mailing a copy of the same by first class mail to the defendant’s

residence noted above

The plaintiff shall file a certificate confirming service as provided herein. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 23, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to

counsel of record on this date, April 23, 2009, by electronic and/or

ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

 Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-10406-RHC-DAS Doc # 4 Filed 04/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 17
Exhibit 10.5
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO DARK FIBER IRU AGREEMENT
 MFS RCN th




---



##### 



METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF NEW 
YORK, INC.
    
    
    
    RCN TELECOM SERVICES, INC.By:

    /s/ Thomas F. Meagher
    
    
    
    By:

    /s/ Richard P. SwiderskiName:

    Thomas F. Meagher
    
    
    
    
    Name:
    Richard P. SwiderskiTitle:

    Director, Long Distance
Transport Planning
    
    
    
    
    Title:

    CTO  ResidentialDate:

    6/18/08
    
    
    
    
    Date:

    6/16/08
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHEN E. WALKER,

Appellant,

v.

ROBYN WALLACE f/k/a ROBYN WALKER,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2073

[May 26, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Sarah L. Willis, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2021-DR-003146-

XXXX-NB.

Stephen E. Walker, Jupiter, pro se.

John F. Schutz of John F. Schutz, P.L., Palm Beach Gardens, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Beatriz H. Coleman, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-10640

Chase Bank USA, N.A., et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiffs Beatriz H. Coleman and John T. Coleman filed this action in state court,

asserting claims against Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC. 

Defendants removed the action to this Court on February 20, 2009.

At a recent status conference, Plaintiffs’ Counsel advised the Court that Beatriz H.

Coleman recently filed for bankruptcy. On June 16, 2009, the parties agreed that John T.

Coleman’s claims in this action would be dismissed with prejudice. (Docket Entry No. 26). The

parties further agreed that John T. Coleman would “provide and participate in discovery” in this

action following his dismissal. (Id.).

Plaintiffs’ Counsel has indicated to the Court that he believes that this action is subject to

an automatic bankruptcy stay. Defense Counsel does not agree that this action is subject to an

automatic stay because the alleged bankrupt party is the plaintiff in this action, not the defendant.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs’ counsel to submit a brief of no more

than five (5) pages by July 10, 2009, providing authority for Plaintiff Beatriz H. Coleman’s

position that her claims in this action are subject to an automatic stay. Defendants shall file a

brief setting forth their position on the same issue by July 24, 2009.

2:09-cv-10640-SFC-RSW Doc # 27 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 411
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: July 1, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July

1, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10640-SFC-RSW Doc # 27 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 412
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act), Jane A. Freeman, the Chief Financial Officer of Scientific
Learning Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of her knowledge:  1.
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2003,
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: February 9, 2005 /s/ Jane A. FreemanJane A. Freeman
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 This certification accompanies and is being furnished with this Periodic Report, shall not be
deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended or otherwise subject to liability under that Section and shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date
of this Periodic Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.