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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4018

To make technical corrections in the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty

Management Act of 1982.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 4, 1996

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To make technical corrections in the Federal Oil and Gas

Royalty Management Act of 1982.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

4 The Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act

5 of 1982 is amended as follows:

6 (1) In section 3(25)(B) strike the word ‘‘provi7 sion’’ and insert in lieu thereof the word ‘‘provi8 sions’’.

9 (2) In the second sentence of section 115(l) in10 sert the word ‘‘so’’ before the word ‘‘demonstrate’’.
2

•HR 4018 IH

1 (3) In the first sentence of section 111(i) insert

2 the word ‘‘not’’ after the word ‘‘shall’’.

3 (4) In the first sentence of section 111(j) strike

4 the word ‘‘rate’’ and insert in lieu thereof the word

5 ‘‘date’’.

6 (5) In the third and fourth sentences of section

7 111(j) strike the word ‘‘owned’’ and insert in lieu

8 thereof the word ‘‘owed’’.

9 (6) In the third sentence of section 111(k)(4)

10 strike the word ‘‘dues’’ and insert in lieu thereof the

11 word ‘‘due’’.

12 (7) In section 117(b)(1)(C) strike the word ‘‘it’’

13 and insert in lieu thereof the word ‘‘its’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Penny Sue HAMILTON, Appellant.

No. WD 46177.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 14, 1993.

Brad B. Baker, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and FENNER and HANNA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Defendant appeals her jury conviction for second degree assault pursuant to section 565.060, RSMo 1986, and the sentence of four years in jail.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
#### Rocco B. KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52236.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 1996.

Jarrett A. Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction *592relief without an evidentiary hearing. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: September 18, 2014 105657

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANTHONY R. BOTTE JR., Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: August 4, 2014 Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.

__________ Randolph V. Kruman, Cortland, for appellant. Joseph A. McBride, District Attorney, Norwich (Michael J. Genute of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chenango County (Sullivan, J.), rendered October 14, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the first degree. In satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was to be sentenced to five years in prison to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision and was to waive his right to appeal. During the pleaproceedings, County Court agreed to release defendant on a oneweek furlough so that he could spend time with his children before sentencing, but admonished him that a condition of his release was that he not consume alcohol or drugs. When he reappeared for sentencing, it was disclosed that defendant had tested positive for THC. As a result, County Court imposed an-2- 105657

enhanced sentence of six years in prison to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals. Defendant argues that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without first conducting a hearing to determine if he, in fact, violated the conditions of his release by smoking marihuana while he was on furlough. We note that this issue has not been preserved due to defendant's failure to object to the enhanced sentence on this basis or to move to withdraw his plea on this ground (see People v Wachtel, 117 AD3d 1203 [2014], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [July 24, 2014]; People v Bucknor, 116 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2014]). In any event, County Court afforded defendant an opportunity to respond and, given the positive test results and defendant's admission to smoking marihuana, assured itself that the enhanced sentence was based upon reliable and accurate information (see People v Kocher, 116 AD3d 1301, 1302 [2014]; People v Paneto, 112 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2013], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [June 27, 2014]; People v Saucier, 69 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2010]). Defendant's claim that he smoked marihuana while in jail does not compel a contrary conclusion under the circumstances presented here. Therefore, we find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed. Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.19
   EXHIBIT C, CREDIT AGREEMENT, AMENDMENT, TO MANUFACTURING AND PURCHASE
  AGREEMENT BETWEEN XYLAN AND VICTRON INC., DATED AS OF DECEMBER 30, 1996


                 AMENDMENT TO THE LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
                 --------------------------------------------

     This Amendment to the LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT is made as of December
30, 1996 by and between VICTRON, INC. (the "Seller") and XYLAN CORPORATION (the
"Buyer").

     WHEREAS, the Seller and the Buyer entered into the LOAN AND SECURITY
AGREEMENT effective as of March 28, 1996 (the "Agreement") which remains in full
force and effect; and

     WHEREAS, the Seller and the Buyer desire to modify certain terms of the
Agreement;

     NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED THAT:

     1.  The aggregate amount of loans set forth in Section 2.1 of the Agreement
shall hereby be amended to not to exceed Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000).

     2.  Pursuant to the amendment to the aggregate amount of the loans as
described, the reference of Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) in Section 2.4
shall be read to Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000).

     3.  Except for the terms amended hereunder, all other terms and conditions
of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until the Maturity Date
as defined in the Agreement.

                                    VICTRON, INC.


                                    By:    /s/ Todd Yun
                                           ------------
                                           Name:   Todd Yun
                                           Title:  President



                                    XYLAN CORPORATION


                                    By:    /s/ Steve Kim
                                           -------------
                                           Name:   Steve Kim
                                           Title:  President
APPELLEE CLASSIC AMERICANA’S UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING OF APPELLEE’S BRIEF Page 1 of 2

NO. 05-15-00528-CV

LINDA FITZERMAN

Appellant

v.

CLASSIC AMERICANA, LLC

Appellee

___________________________________________________

APPELLEE CLASSIC AMERICANA’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

EXTEND TIME FOR FILING OF APPELLEE’S BRIEF

Appellee Classic Americana files this unopposed motion to extend time for 

the filing of Appellee’s Brief under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) 

and 38.6(d) and would show the Court as follows:

1. The current deadline for Appellee’s Brief is September 28, 2015.

2. Appellee requests a new deadline of October 12, 2015.

3. Appellee seeks this extension because lead counsel for Appellee has 

continuing medical issues that have required unanticipated time out of the office

and have precluded counsel’s ability to work.

Respectfully submitted,

 _/s/ David B. Miller__ 

David B. Miller

Texas Bar No. 00788057

Peter C. Hall

Texas Bar No. 24044224

ACCEPTED

05-15-00528-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

9/25/2015 9:27:19 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 9/25/2015 9:27:19 AM LISA MATZ Clerk
APPELLEE CLASSIC AMERICANA’S UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING OF APPELLEE’S BRIEF Page 2 of 2

Schneider & Miller, P.C. 

300 N. Coit Road, Suite 1125

Richardson, Texas 75080

(972) 479-1112 Telephone

(972) 479-1113 Telecopy

Attorneys for Appellee

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that on September 24, 2015, I spoke to counsel for Appellant, Eric 

Redwine, and he stated that he agrees to Appellee’s request for an extension.

_/s/ David B. Miller__

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served upon all 

counsel of record on this the 25th day of September, 2015, as follows:

VIA EMAIL

John F. Redwine

Bennett, Weston, LaJone & Turner, P.C.

1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 280

Dallas, TX 75234 

VIA EMAIL

J. Michael Weston

Bennett Weston, Lajone & Turner PC

1603 Lyndon B Johnson FWY Ste. 280

Dallas, TX 75234

/s/ David B. Miller_____________

David B. Miller
EXHIBIT 31.2I, Jack P. Healey, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f), for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities,particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control overfinancial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financialreporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control overfinancial reporting which arereasonably 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 otheremployees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.   Date: March 3, 2006   /s/ Jack P. HealeyJack P. HealeyExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
Order entered April 16, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00201-CV

RICHARD RALEY AND RALEY HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellants

V.

DANIEL K. HAGOOD, P.C. AND FITZPATRICK HAGOOD SMITH & 

UHL, LLP, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00390-B

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ written verification of payment for the 

supplemental clerk’s record they requested January 15, 2020. Accordingly, we 

ORDER Dallas County Clerk John F. Warren to file the supplemental record no 

later than April 27, 2020.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Mr. 

Warren and the parties.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

CIVIL NO. 09-11380

RIVIERA DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

-vRDI OF MICHIGAN, LLC,

Defendant(s).

 /

ORDER SETTING ASIDE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

At a session of said court, held in the

 United States Courthouse, in the City of

 Detroit, State of Michigan, on May 11, 2009.

 

 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This Court having issued an Order to Show Cause for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and an Order Requiring the Defendant to Disclose Citizenship of LLC Members

and Defendant having filed a response to that order, therefore;

IT IS ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction be and the same is hereby SET ASIDE.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: May 11, 2009

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

on May 11, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11380-PJD-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 05/11/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 122
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH ECF No. 76 filed 07/28/10 PageID.903 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH ECF No. 76 filed 07/28/10 PageID.904 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:09-cv-11614-SFC-MJH ECF No. 18-8, PageID.324 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 6Case 2:09-cv-11614-SFC-MJH ECF No. 18-8, PageID.325 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 6Case 2:09-cv-11614-SFC-MJH ECF No. 18-8, PageID.326 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 6Case 2:09-cv-11614-SFC-MJH ECF No. 18-8, PageID.327 Filed 04/09/10 Page 4 of 6Case 2:09-cv-11614-SFC-MJH ECF No. 18-8, PageID.328 Filed 04/09/10 Page 5 of 6Case 2:09-cv-11614-SFC-MJH ECF No. 18-8, PageID.329 Filed 04/09/10 Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT 23.1


                     CONSENT OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP




The Board of Trustees
Amli Residential Properties Trust:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-8819, 33-89508 and 33-93120) on Form S-3 and the registration
statements (Nos. 333-8813 and 333-8815) on form S-8 of Amli Residential
Properties Trust of our report dated February 28, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Amli Residential Properties Trust as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, and the related
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report on
Form 10-K of Amli Residential Properties Trust.





                                            KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP          


Chicago, Illinois
March 19, 1997
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 34-4 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 543
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 34-4 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 544
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JULEA WARD,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-CV-11237 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

ROY WILBANKS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS WILBANKS', CLACK'S,

HAWKS', INCARNATI'S, OKDIE'S, PARKER'S, SEDLIK'S,

STAPLETON'S, MARTIN'S, AND POLITE'S MOTION TO

DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 23) AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 56(f) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 38)

For the reasons set forth on the record at a January 28, 2010 hearing, defendants'

motion for summary judgment as to ten of the defendants, due to lack of a substantial role

in plaintiff Julea Ward's dismissal from Eastern Michigan University's ("EMU") Counseling

Practicum course, is hereby GRANTED, IN PART, as to defendants EMU Regents

Wilbanks, Clack, Hawks, Incarnati, Okdie, Parker, Sedlik, and Stapleton, and EMU

President Dr. Martin. These defendants are hereby DISMISSED from this lawsuit, without

prejudice. Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to ten of the defendants is hereby

DENIED, IN PART, as to defendant EMU Dean of the College of Education Dr. Polite.

Plaintiff Ward's Rule 56(f) motion for relief from defendants' motion for summary judgment

as to ten of the defendants is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2010

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-11237-GCS-PJK Doc # 75 Filed 02/01/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2123
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

February 1, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11237-GCS-PJK Doc # 75 Filed 02/01/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2124
cbmg_ex1029.htm


Exhibit 10.29


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 




  





9











  






 


 




  





10











  






 


 




  





11











  






 


 


12
Exhibit 32

  Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant
                to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Dana C.  Gavenda,  Chief  Executive  Officer and President of FSB Community
Bankshares, Inc., (the "Company") and Kevin D. Maroney, Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  each certify in his capacity as an
officer of the Company that he has reviewed  the  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the  "Report") and that to the best of his
knowledge:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Sections 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.


Date:  May 13, 2009                        /s/ Dana C. Gavenda
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Dana C. Gavenda
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:  May 13, 2009                        /s/ Kevin D. Maroney
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Kevin D. Maroney
                                           Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial 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.
Order entered June 9, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01285
- CV ARUBA PETROLEUM, INC ., Appellant
V. LISA PARR, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 11
- 01650
- E 

### O RDER
We GRANT court reporter Vikki L. Ogden’s third request for extension of time and ORDER the record be filed no later than July 24, 2015. Because the reporter’s record in this appeal was first due November 6, 2014, we caution Ms. Ogd en that failure to timely file the record may result in an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she complies

. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic transmission to the Honorable M ark Greenberg, Judge of C ounty Court at Law No. 5; Ms. Ogden; and counsel for all parties.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARREN McLEHAN and NOREEN 

McLEHAN,

Plaintiff, Case Number 09-11547

Honorable David M. Lawson

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen 

CHASE BANK, NA, TROTT AND TROTT, P.C.,

COUNTY OF WAYNE, and FEDERAL HOME 

LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANT WAYNE COUNTY’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Presently before the Court is the report issued on July 1, 2010 by Magistrate Judge R. Steven

Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Whalen recommended granting the motion to dismiss

filed by defendant Wayne County, because the defendant is immune from suit. 

Although the magistrate judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no

objections have been filed. The parties’ failure to file objections to the report and recommendation

waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d

1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases

the Court from its duty to independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [dkt

# 36] is ADOPTED.
-2-

It is further ORDERED that defendant Wayne County’s motion to dismiss [dkt. #22] is

GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ complaint as to defendant Wayne County ONLY

is DISMISSED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 23, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on July 23, 2010.

s/Teresa Scott-Feijoo 

TERESA SCOTT-FEIJOO