alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30791 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARTHUR T. MITCHELL Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:04-CR-4-D-M1

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arthur T. Mitchell appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing that it violates the Sixth Amendment rule announced in Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004). After briefing, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), extending to the Sentencing Guidelines the Court’s Sixth Amendment holding in Blakely and rendering the Guidelines advisory only. Mitchell’s Blakely objection in the district court preserved the issue for appeal, and we review forNo. 04-30791 -2- harmless error, which requires a showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court would have imposed the same sentence if it had been operating under an advisory guidelines system. See United States v. Pineiro , 410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record convinces us that the error in this case cannot be considered harmless. Although the district court sentenced Mitchell to the maximum sentence authorized by the then-mandatory guidelines range, that fact is insufficient, standing alone, to satisfy the Government’s burden. See United States v. Woods , F.3d , No. 04-11058, 2006 WL 163475 (5th Cir. Jan. 24, 2005). The district court’s comments about the defendant’s criminal history and the impact of his offense shed no additional light on what the court would have done if the Guidelines had been advisory; they may simply reflect why the court believed the sentence was appropriate within the mandatory guidelines framework.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
#### Wolfe *v.*Wolfe.

(No. 24186

Decided June 21, 1933.)

*Mr. Benjamin F. James*and *Mr. Silas E. Hurin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Samuel K. Beetham*and *Messrs. Tracy, Chapman & Welles,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Allen, Bevis and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Stephenson and Jones, JJ., not participating.
EXHIBIT 23.1

     REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors
All American Pet Company, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of All American
Pet Company, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and the
related statements of operations, changes in shareholders'
deficit and cash flows for the years then ended.  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 standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as 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 financial position
of All American Pet Company, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and
2005 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the
years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming
that the company will continue as a going concern.  As discussed
in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Company had a net loss
of $2,513,266 and a negative cash flow from operation of
$1,521,895 for the year ended December 31, 2006, and had a
working capital deficiency of $2,456,364 and a shareholders'
deficit of $1,969,888 as of December 31, 2006.  These factors
raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going
concern.  Management's plans concerning this matter are also
described in Note 2.  The accompanying financial statements do
not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of
this uncertainty.



/s/ Weinberg & Company, PA


July 13, 2007
Boca Raton, Florida
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 22

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

to prohibit the granting of Presidential reprieves and pardons between

October 1 of a year in which a Presidential election occurs and January

21 of the year following, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 27, 2001

Mr. FRANK introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States of America to prohibit the granting of Presidential

reprieves and pardons between October 1 of a year in

which a Presidential election occurs and January 21

of the year following, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid for all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

HJ 22 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The power to grant reprieves and par5 dons for offenses against the United States shall not be

6 exercised between October 1 of a year in which a Presi7 dential election occurs and January 21 of the year fol8 lowing; except that after October 1 in said year a Presi9 dent may delay the execution of a sentence of death until

10 January 25 of the year following.

11 ‘‘SECTION 2. All pardons and reprieves must be an12 nounced publicly at the time they are granted.’’.

Æ
April 19, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GLENN HEGAR, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE STATE 

OF TEXAS; AND KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF TEXAS, Appellants

NO. 14-15-00027-CV V.

CHECKFREE SERVICES CORPORATION, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, CheckFree 

Services Corporation, signed September 2, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the 

record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order 

the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellants, Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the 

State of Texas; and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, jointly 

and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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 Quarterly Report of Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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.


Date: February 19, 2008                         /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth
Square, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
Nonemployee Director's Compensation Schedule



 HEI Exhibit 10.15 
  
 NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTOR’S COMPENSATION SCHEDULE 
 As of April 1, 2005 
  
 HEI 
  

				
	 	  	paid quarterly


		
	 Annual Cash Retainer
	  	$	32,500
	 Chair, HEI Audit Committee
	  	 	15,000
	 Member, HEI Audit Committee
	  	 	5,000
	 Chair, HEI Compensation Committee
	  	 	5,000
	 Chair, HEI Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee
	  	 	5,000
	 Lead Director
	  	 	10,000
		
	 HEI Common Stock annual grant (May 1)
	  	 	1,400 shares
	 HEI Common Stock one-time grant for new directors
	  	 	2,000 shares

  
 ASB & HECO 
  

				
	 	  	paid quarterly


	 Annual Cash Retainer (for HEI & non-HEI directors, for each board served)
	  	$	20,000
	 Chair, Audit Committee
	  	 	10,000
	 Member, Audit Committee
	  	 	4,000
		
	 HEI Common Stock annual grant (May 1)
	  	 
 	1,000
shares

  
 HELCO & MECO Advisory Boards

  
 $1,000 for each meeting, no retainer
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2707

_____________________________

JEREMIAH BUTLER,

Petitioner,

v.

MARK S. INCH, Florida

Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

October 4, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

RAY, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jeremiah Butler, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, 

Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.
#### In the Matter of Norstar Trust Company, as Trustee under a Trust Created by Carolyn H. Lyon, Grantor.

Decree unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S. (Appeal from decree of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S.&emdash;judicial accounting.) Present&emdash;Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
Exhibit 10.26
                                  -------------

          1997 Director Stock Compensation and Option Plan Certificate

                             ESCALADE, INCORPORATED

                           Non-Qualified Stock Option

Escalade, Incorporated, an Indiana Corporation with its principal place of
business in Evansville, Indiana, hereby grants to the Director named below an
option to purchase, in accordance with and subject to the terms and restrictions
of the Escalade, Incorporated 1997 Director Stock Compensation and Option Plan,
the number of shares of the Common Stock of Escalade, Incorporated at the price
set forth herein as follows:

Director        _______________________

Number of Shares on which Option is Granted: ____________

Option Price per Share:    $___________

Date of Grant:    ______________
Expiration Date:  ______________

This option is exercisable 100% after _____________, and until expiration.

Participation in this Plan is open to all members of the Board of Directors of
the Company, whether or not they are salaried officers or employees of the
company or any subsidiary. The option shall be subject to the terms and
conditions of Article (5) of the plan.

This Plan is intended to be self-governing and requires no discretionary action
by any administrative body with respect to any transaction under the Plan. All
grants of options to directors under the Plan shall be automatic and
non-discretionary and shall be made strictly in accordance with the terms of the
Plan. To the extent, if any, that questions of administration arise, they shall
be resolved by the entire Board of Directors.

The Company shall be entitled to withhold the amount of any tax attributable to
any shares deliverable under the Plan after giving the person entitled to
receive such delivery notice as far in advance as practicable and the Company
may defer making delivery, if any such tax is payable, until indemnified to its
satisfaction.

The Board of Directors may suspend or terminate the Plan at any time and may
amend it from time to time in such respects as the Board of Directors may deem
advisable in order that any grants thereunder shall conform to, or otherwise
reflect, any change in applicable laws or regulations; or to permit the Company
or its directors to enjoy the benefits of any change in applicable laws or
regulations; provided, however, that no amendment shall be made without Share
Owner approval, which increases the number of shares reserved for issuance
hereunder. No such amendment, suspension or termination shall impair the rights
of directors under any outstanding options.

                                       ESCALADE, INCORPORATED

                                       /s/ C. W. (BILL) REED
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       C. W. (Bill) Reed, President, CEO

                                       59
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6355] 

# 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 “Raqib Shaw at the Met,” 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 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about November 4, 2008, until on or about March 1, 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 Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (                        *telephone:*                         202/453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                     

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E8-21015 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER>  1
   <NAME> POTOMAC CAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,403,433
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         378,649
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       691,320
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,343,126
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,816,528
<COMMON>                                       118,497
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    1,010,433
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            730,197
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,859,127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          142,500
<PREFERRED>                                    125,297
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,718,310
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               8,090<F1>
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 165,450<F1>
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  200,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                          985
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    162,322      
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                20,772
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               2,413,675
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,816,528
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      389,060
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             5,295 
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     341,543
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     346,838
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         42,222
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              15,796 
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  58,018
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        35,036
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,982 
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      4,145
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   18,837 
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        49,148 
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      132,900<F2>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          75,653
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.16 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F3>
<FN>
<F1>Included on the Balance Sheet in the caption "Short-term debt."
<F2>Total annualized interest costs for all utility long-term debt outstanding
at March 31, 1997.
<F3>No material dilution would occur if all the convertible preferred stock and
debentures were converted into common stock.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Martin Jones, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s claim that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner to excuse a black person from the jury *(see, Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79). Although defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination by demonstrating that *904the prosecutor removed four of six prospective black jurors *(see, People v Burnett,*152 AD2d 910), the prosecution proffered specific, race-neutral reasons for excusing the one challenged juror *(see, Batson v Kentucky, supra,*at 96-97; *People v Hernandez,*75 NY2d 350; *People v Jones,*156 AD2d 954). We conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient and amply supported the verdict *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
#### Rexford Realty, Inc., Doing Business as Century 21, Respondent, v Dolores B. Koppler, Appellant.

Order unani*895mously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, both parties moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion but erred in granting plaintiffs motion. Whether the May 4, 1988 listing agreement between the parties was intended to serve as a "renewal” of their prior agreement, and whether the "effective period” of 60 days under the May 4, 1988 agreement is to be accorded any significance in light of the May 23, 1988 rescission of that agreement, are questions of fact which must be resolved at trial *(see, Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn.,*32 NY2d 285, 293). That part of the order granting summary judgment to plaintiff must, therefore, be reversed and plaintiffs motion must be denied. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.