alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.5

nStor Technologies, Inc.

July 31, 2004

Cenvill Recreation, Inc.1601 Forum PlaceSuite 500West Palm Beach, Florida 33417Attn:  Mark F. Levy

Dear Mr. Levy:

We have agreed to the following amendments to that certain Promissory Note, dated April 20, 2004, in the amount of $1,500,000 (the “Note”), payable by nStor Technologies, Inc. to Cenvill Recreation, Inc., copies ofwhich are attached hereto. 

1)         The maturity date of the Note is hereby extended from July 31, 2004 to October 31, 2004 (“Maturity”).

2)         Accrued and unpaid interest on the Note through July 31, 2004 in the amount of $24,151 is hereby added to the $1,500,000 principal amount of the Note so that as of the datehereof, the principal amount of the Note has been increased to $1,524,151 (the “New principal Amount”).  Interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum will accrue on the unpaid New Principal Amount and be payable at Maturity.

Except as set forth in this letter, the Note remains unmodified and in full force and effect. 

Please indicate your concurrence with the foregoing.

Sincerely,

                                                                                               Cenvill Recreation, Inc.

/s/ JackJaiven                                                                         Agreed By: /s/ Mark F. LevyJackJaiven                                                                              Mark F. LevyVice President andTreasurer                                                   Vice President and Secretary

JJ/tw

**1601 Forum Place * Suite 500 * West Palm Beach * Florida * 33401(561) 640-3105 * fax (561) 640-3160**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Thomas Kaimanu AKANA, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 00-16726.

D.C. No. CV-00-00235-PMP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.*

Before HAWKINS, GRABER, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rehearing granted Dec. 24, 2002. See 2002 WL 31875683.

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Thomas Kaimanu Akana (“Akana”) seeks specific performance of his plea agreement in which he explicitly waived his rights to appeal and to attack his sentence collaterally. The government concedes that it failed to assert this waiver in district court. Akana’s failure to challenge the government’s conduct at sentencing and his failure to appeal the sentence directly, however, constitute valid waivers of his right to attack his sentence collaterally. Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of his argument.

Akana’s motion to not publish this disposition is denied as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge, Concurring.

MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge.

Even if we could reach the merits of Akana’s claim, the government was under no obligation to move for the downward departure that Akana seeks. *See United States v. Vences,*169 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.1999); *United States v. Flores-Payon,*942 F.2d 556, 561-62 (9th Cir.1991). Any obligation to file such a motion was entirely discretionary on the part of the government, which had legitimate and non-diseriminatory reasons for declining to so move: Akana’s promised cooperation was less than complete, and he was indicted on unrelated drug charges shortly before his sentencing. *See Wade v. United States*504 U.S. 181, 185, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992). Nor was the district court under any obligation to continue Akana’s sentencing to enable him to “clear up” those charges. *See United States v. Lewis,*991 F.2d 524, 528 (9th Cir.1993).

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Benjamin L. DOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. FURY, c/o VideoTronic; Donald Global Software, Global Software, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1649.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Benjamin L. Doyle, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Benjamin L. Doyle seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action as frivolous. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 18, 2002. The *141notice of appeal was filed on June 1, 2002.* Because Doyle failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Doyle’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

**For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
Exhibit 32.1



Statement of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

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







November 1, 2007



/S/  Debra L. ReedDebra L. ReedChief Executive Officer
#### A. BOLOGNA & COMPANY, Inc., v. Nick FRANK.

No. 1959.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 22, 1939.

Ben N. Tucker, of Hammond, and Yar-rut & Stich, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Wm. A. Houghton, of Independence, for appellee.

DORE, Judge.

It is agreed by the parties litigant and their counsel that the facts and issues in this case are similar to those in the case of A. Bologna & Co., Inc., v. Guiseppe Arcardo, 187 So. 290, which we have this day decided, and that the decision in the latter case is controlling herein.

Therefore, for the reasons assigned in the case of A. Bologna & Co., Inc., v. Guiseppe Arcardo, the judgment of the District Court in the instant case is affirmed.
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with the Workiva Platform-->
<!--Copyright 2023 Workiva-->
<!--r:9e586096-db29-47c7-895a-1bba743e4c0a,g:a19932dc-dd28-4955-8510-c92ebe756b2d-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20230825" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20230825">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2023" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2023/dei-2023.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20230825_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20230825_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0000001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 25, 2022

No. 04-22-00120-CR

Jace Vincent MEAGHER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR9095

Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to 

dismiss is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is so ORDERED on May 25, 2022.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of May, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
#### In re Walter Jacob DAVIS, a/k/a Marcus Swanson, Petitioner.

No. 02-7176.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 18, 2002.

Decided Nov. 14, 2002.

Walter Jacob Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Walter Jacob Davis, a North Carolina inmate, petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to act on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Our review of the district court docket sheet in that action reveals that after Davis filed his mandamus petition, the district court entered a final order dismissing Davis’ § 2255 motion. Accordingly, although we grant Davis leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50394-50395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6331]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Museums of Berlin and the Legacy of James Simon''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Museums of Berlin and the Legacy of 
James Simon'', imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Legion of Honor, San Francisco, 
California, from on or about October 18, 2008, until on or about 
January 18, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/453-8050). The

[[Page 50395]]

address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 
700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: August 18, 2008.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E8-19769 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
189 La. 253

#### STATE v. TABOR et al.

No. 34687.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 7, 1938.

Carroll Montet, of Thibodaux, for rela-tors.

C. A. Morvant, Acting Dist. Atty., of Thibodaux, for respondents.

Milling, Godchaux, Saal & Milling and Lawrence K. Benson, all of New Orleans, amici curiae.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The defendants- were convicted of violating Act No. 130 of 1936, in having trapped fur-bearing animals upon swamplands of others, without their consent, and were each sentenced by the trial judge to pay a fine of $50 and costs, and ten days in jail, and, in default of payment of the fine and costs, to serve an additional sixty days in jail. They reserved a bill of exception when the trial court overruled their motions in arrest of judgment, predicated on the ground that the conviction and sentence were null and void, as Act No. 130 of 1936 was unconstitutional, being in violation of clause 18 of section 4 of article 4 and section 6 of article 4 of the Constitution of 1921.

After sentence was imposed upon them, defendants applied to this court for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus, which were gfanted.

Section 6 of article 4 of the Constitution of 1921, prohibits the Legislature from passing any local or special law “not enumerated in Section 4 of this article, unless notice of the intention to apply therefor shall have been published, without cost to the State, in the locality where the matter or things to be affected may be situated.”

In the case of State of Louisiana v. Herman Clement, et al., La.Sup., 178 So. 493, the defendants attack the constitutionality of Act No. 130 of 1936 on this identical ground. We held that since the statute contained a provision which limited its application to lands situated less than 150 miles from the shore line of the Gulf of Mexico, it was a local or special law and not a general one, and that, therefore, since notice of intention to apply therefor had not been published in accordance with the provisions of section 6, article 4 of the Constitution, the statute was clearly unconstitutional.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Act No. 130 of 1936 is declared unconstitutional, null, and void, the motions in arrest of judgment are sustained, the convictions and sentences are set aside, and the defendants are discharged.
#### Pomie TORRES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles DUFRAIN, Respondant-Appellee.

Docket No. 02-2134.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 6, 2002.

Marsha R. Taubenhaus, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Diana Villanueva, Assistant District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney Kings County, Brooklyn, NY, (Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall, Assistant District Attorneys, on the brief) for Appellee.

Present JACOBS and SACK, Circuit Judges, and TRAGER,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable David G. Trager, District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Pomie Torres appeals from a final order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.), denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Torres was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree in New York Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of six to twelve years on each count. The charges arose from an incident in which Torres stabbed his wife. His defense at trial was justification.

Torres argues that his trial was rendered fundamentally unfair by admission of evidence that was insufficiently probative in light of its prejudicial effect: i.e., evidence that he had previously assaulted *486his wife, that his wife had obtained an order of protection against him, and that he had spent time in jail.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated on the record by the district court at the hearing on January 16, 2002. *See*Transcript of Civil Cause for Motion, at 9-12, *Pommie Torres v. Charles Dufrain,*CV-00-1789 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2002).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
##### 



PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Exhibit 11 COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(Unaudited; in millions except per share data) Three Months EndedMarch 31,2004
    
    2003Income (loss) before cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    185.7
    
    
    
    (23.4
    )Cumulative effect of accounting change (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    8.4Net income (loss)
    
    $
    185.7
    
    
    
    (15.0
    )Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    (3.4
    )
    
    
    (3.4
    )Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
    
    $
    182.3
    
    
    
    (18.4
    )Basic:Average number of common shares outstanding
    
    
    91.7
    
    
    
    88.6Diluted:Average number of common shares outstanding
    
    
    91.7
    
    
    
    88.6Common stock equivalents - stock options
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    Common stock equivalents - restricted stock
    
    
    0.4
    
    
    
    0.4Conversion of mandatory convertible preferred stock
    
    
    4.2
    
    
    
    5.0Diluted average number of common shares outstanding (2)
    
    
    97.9
    
    
    
    94.0Basic earnings (loss) per share:Income (loss) before cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    1.99
    
    
    
    (0.30
    )Cumulative effect of accounting change (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.09Basic earnings (loss) per share
    
    $
    1.99
    
    
    
    (0.21
    )Diluted earnings (loss) per share:Income (loss) before cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    1.90
    
    
    
    (0.30
    )Cumulative effect of accounting change (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.09Diluted earnings (loss) per share (2)
    
    $
    1.90
    
    
    
    (0.21
    )
  (1)
    
    The three months ended March 31, 2003, included adoption of
SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.(2)
    
    The incremental shares associated with restricted stock and the assumed conversion
of the mandatory convertible preferred shares to common shares were excluded from the
diluted loss per share calculation for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as their impact
would have been anti-dilutive.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 NOVEMBER 10, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-11485

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00029-CR-ORL-22-DAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SARDER FARUK,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(November 10, 2009)

Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sarder Faruk appeals his 27 convictions of bank fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
Faruk argues, for the first time on appeal, there is a variance between his

indictment and the factual basis for his guilty pleas. We affirm.

Faruk’s knowing, voluntary, and unconditional plea of guilt “waive[d] all

nonjurisdictional defects in the proceeding.” United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317,

1320 (11th Cir. 2003). Faruk may obtain relief from his pleas of guilt only if he

identifies a defect that affected the power of the district court to enter its judgment.

See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002). A

jurisdictional error must be apparent on the “‘face of the indictment or the record at

the time of the plea.’” United States v. Tomeny, 144 F.3d 749, 751 (11th Cir.

1998) (quoting United States v. Caperell, 938 F.2d 975, 977–78 (9th Cir. 1991)).

Faruk’s argument does not cast doubt on the jurisdiction of the district court.

Faruk argues that he was charged with and pleaded guilty to violating section

1344(2), but that his conduct instead violated section 1344(1). The record reveals

no jurisdictional defect. Faruk was indicted for and admitted violating section

1344, and the factual basis stated to support Faruk’s guilty plea, that he kited

checks at seven financial institutions, constitutes a violation of section 1344. See

United States v. Goldsmith, 109 F.3d 714, 716 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Where the

indictment . . . charge[s] both clauses of [section 1344], as was done in this case,

the defendant’s conviction may be sustained under either clause.”); see also United

2
States v. Sirang, 70 F.3d 588, 595–96 (11th Cir. 1995) (check-kiting encompassed

in 18 U.S.C. § 1344). Faruk waived any nonjurisdictional error by unconditionally

pleading guilty.

Faruk’s convictions are AFFIRMED.

3