alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-20585

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OTIS GEORGE BRADEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CR-255

_________________________________________________________________

April 11, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Otis George Braden appeals his guilty plea conviction and

sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.

Braden’s unconditional guilty plea bars him from challenging the

district court’s ruling on his pretrial discovery motion. See

United States v. Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231, 1240 (5th Cir. 1991).

Furthermore, the district court did not commit plain error by

failing to find that sentencing guideline and statutory provisions
-2-

relating to the carrying of a weapon during an offense were

unconstitutional. See United States v. Owens, 996 F.2d 59, 61 (5th

Cir. 1993). Finally, the court did not commit plain error in

refusing to make a downward departure from the sentencing

guidelines based upon the fact that Braden’s behavior was

“aberrant.” See United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th

Cir. 1994).

A F F I R M E D.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6551 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6551

 To provide a private right of action for persons harmed by violations 
 of the Franchise Rule of the Federal Trade Commission, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2022

Ms. Schakowsky introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide a private right of action for persons harmed by violations 
 of the Franchise Rule of the Federal Trade Commission, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
person found to have committed any violation of part 436 of title 16, 
Code of Federal Regulations, shall be liable to any person harmed by 
such violation for--
            (1) actual damages;
            (2) additional equitable relief, including rescission of 
        any contract and such other equitable relief as a court may 
        find appropriate; and
            (3) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
    (b) Jurisdiction and Venue.--Jurisdiction and venue of a civil 
action under this section shall be concurrent and may be commenced in--
            (1) the United States District Court in the district in 
        which the claimant resides; or
            (2) in a State court of competent jurisdiction in the State 
        in which the claimant resides.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.15(a)


 


HORACE MANN SERVICE CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE CHANGE IN CONTROL PLAN


 


SCHEDULE A PARTICIPANTS


 


Note: The effective date of entry shall be subject to Section
4.2(a).


 


	NAME OR TITLE	
        EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF 

        PARTICIPATION*

	 	 
	TIER I PARTICIPANTS
	 	 
	President and CEO	May 16, 2013
	 	 
	TIER II PARTICIPANTS
	EVP and CFO	**
	EVP, Property and Casualty	**
	EVP, Annuity, Life, Group	February 15, 2012


 


* Subject to acceptance within 30 days of effective date of
participation

** Subject to Section 4.2(b) of the Plan


 


Last updated: April 1, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                          53,143
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,092
<INVENTORY>                                    267,576
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               375,947
<PP&E>                                         264,879
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 993,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          245,609
<BONDS>                                        305,270
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           201
<OTHER-SE>                                     336,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   993,337
<SALES>                                        581,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               592,617
<CGS>                                          450,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  450,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,010)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       717
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,727)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,727)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($1.33)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of Kabel Deutschland GmbH, Unterföhring:

We
have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Kabel Deutschland GmbH, Unterföhring (and subsidiaries), as of March 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in consolidated equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended March 31, 2009. These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company's internal control over financial
reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose
of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In
our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Kabel Deutschland GmbH,
Unterföhring (and subsidiaries), at March 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended March 31, 2009, in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).

July 22,
2009

Ernst &
Young GmbH
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft
Munich, Germany

/s/ RALF BOSTEDT Wirtschaftsprüfer



/s/ JOSEF CHRIST Wirtschaftsprüfer


---



QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 14, 2009 

1006 

Order 

 

October 14, 2009 

138908 

THOMAS JOHN SHAY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138908 

 COA: 282550 

Wayne CC: 06-608275-NZ 

JOHN ALDRICH, WILLIAM PLEMONS, and 

J. MILLER, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

OFFICER ALLBRIGHT and OFFICER 

LOCKLEAR, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the 

application or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). The parties shall submit 

supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether Romska v 

Opper, 234 Mich App 512 (1999), was correctly decided. The parties should not submit 

mere restatements of their application papers.
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
              RALI SERIES 2006-QA3 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
#### Chris KOKOS and Charles Kokos, Appellants, v. Gregory CONSTANTINE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

July 23, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19961]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 70

RIN 2900-AM02


Beneficiary Travel Under 38 U.S.C. 111 Within the United States; 
Correction

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a document 
in the Federal Register on June 30, 2008 (73 FR 36796), amending its 
beneficiary travel regulations that provide a mechanism for payment of 
travel expenses within the United States under 38 U.S.C. 111 to help 
veterans and other persons obtain care and services from VA's Veterans 
Health Administration (VHA). That document contained a typographical 
error. This document corrects that error.

DATES: Effective Date: August 28, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tony Guagliardo, Chief Business Office 
(16), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 
810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 254-0406. (This is 
not a toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 30, 2008, VA published a final rule 
in the Federal Register (73 FR 36796) amending its beneficiary travel 
regulation. The revised regulations, set forth at 38 CFR part 70, 
provide a mechanism for payment of travel expenses within the United 
States under 38 U.S.C. 111 to help veterans and other persons obtain 
care and services from VA's Veterans Health Administration. In making 
the necessary edits, a word was accidentally omitted in Sec.  70.10(b). 
This document corrects the error in Sec.  70.10(b) by removing ``care 
services'' and adding, in its place ``care or services''.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, 
Government contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-veterans, 
Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, 
Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical 
research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel 
and transportation expenses, Veterans.

William F. Russo,
Director of Regulations Management.

0
For the reason set out in the preamble, VA is correcting 38 CFR part 70 
as follows:

PART 70--VHA BENEFICIARY TRAVEL UNDER 38 U.S.C. 111

0
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 111, 501, 1701, 1714, 1720, 1728, 
1782, 1783, E.O 11302.


Sec.  70.10  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  70.10, paragraph (b) is amended by removing ``care 
services'' and adding, in its place, ``care or services''.

[FR Doc. E8-19961 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,157-02

EX PARTE DON MYCHEL GREEN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 16-2635-CR-B-A IN THE 274 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM GUADALUPE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and

sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 11.07. 

Applicant contends that he is being denied due process in the parole revocation process.

Applicant alleges that while out on parole he was arrested for new charges, but no formal charges

have been filed. He says a parole revocation warrant was issued and executed, but he has been held

for more than 41 days without a parole revocation hearing and without being formally charged with

the new offense. 
2

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. TEX. GOV’T CODE Sec.

508.282; Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S 471 (1972). Accordingly, the record should be developed.

The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, §

3(d). The trial court shall order the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Office of the General

Counsel to obtain a response from a person with knowledge of relevant facts. In developing the

record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). It appears that Applicant

is represented by counsel. If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine if Applicant

is represented by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and

wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent Applicant

at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether Applicant has been advised of his

rights in the revocation process, whether he requested or has received a preliminary hearing, and

whether he has received a final revocation hearing. The trial court shall make findings of fact as to

whether Applicant was arrested for a new offense, and if so, whether he has been formally charged

with a new offense. The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether

Applicant is being afforded due process in the parole revocation process. The trial court may make

any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claims.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested
3

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: December 8, 2021

Do not publish
#### Harrison JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 31746.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B.

May 6,1935.

E. J. Pollard, of Hernando, for appellant.

Wm. H. Maynard, Asst. Atty, Gen., for the State.

GRIFFITH, Justice.

There were only two witnesses to the homicide, the defendant and one other. The latter by his testimony made out a clear case of murder. The defendant testified to a state of facts which tended to establish self-defense. The solution of the issue was therefore for the jury. No errors of law are disclosed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.6
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Petroflow Energy, Ltd;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report.3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly represent in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)
and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:
 a.)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
this disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andc.)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, this
issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the
audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing equivalent
functions):
 a.)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or the other
employees who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
 PETROFLOW ENERGY LTD.
RegistrantBy:
    /s/  John A. MeltonName:
    John A. MeltonTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**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 the Annual Report of Cannabis Sativa, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Tobias, Chief Executive 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: 

 

|   | (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. |

 

| Dated: April 18, 2023 |   | /s/ David Tobias        |   |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | David Tobias            |   |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
#### Samuel Brownold v. David Rodbell.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.