alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE ex rel. LANGLOIS et al. v. LANCASTER et al.

No. 3400.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 20, 1951.

W. C. Perrault, Opelousas, Paul G. Bor-rón, Baton Rouge, J. P. Jewell, Jr., New Roads, for appellants.

Ferd C. Claiborne, New Roads, Samuel C. Cashio, Maringouin, Fred G. Benton, Chas. H. Dameron, Baton Rouge, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

In their application for rehearing, respondents contend that we erred in four particulars in rendering our opinion:

> “1. The Court erred in holding that evidence of petitioners’ prior service as councilmen of the Town of New Roads for the term preceding the election of January 3, 1949, was inadmissible under the pleadings and that the Court could not consider the findings of fact of the Supreme Court on that point;

> *“2.*The Court erred in holding that the finding of the Supreme Court that petitioners were councilmen of the Town of New Roads at the.time of and prior to the election of January 3, 1949, was obiter dictum.

> *271"3. The Court erred in holding that petitioners were not entitled to avail themselves of the holdover provisions of Section 6 of Article 19 of the Constitution and, therefore, had no right to attack the election of June 14, 1949.

> *“4.*The Court erred in holding that petitioners are usurpers and ordering them to deliver their offices to the appellees and ordering them to pay the costs in both courts.”

In answer to respondents’ assignment of errors, we have again given due consideration of the case, with their arguments, both oral, in briefs and in their application for rehearing in mind. We do not see wherein we erred.

In further argument to sustain our opinion, we state that we have thoroughly searched the record to ascertain whether respondents had ever claimed to have been hold-overs before the lower court and fail to find a scintilla of evidence or pleading to justify our coming to any other conclusion but what is expressed in our opinion. It is certainly not contained in their answer. We have carefully read the opinion of the trial judge and nowhere in that opinion is mention made by him that respondents were so contending. It is now well established that the appellate courts will not pass upon any contention not made in the pleadings nor passed upon by the trial court. In so far as we are concerned, and the record does not disclose otherwise, the contention of respondents that they are hold-overs is an after-thought and raised for the first time, either in the Supreme Court or in this court. It is strange indeed that respondents did not favor us with a copy of their brief filed in the Supreme 'Court.

We state again that as we view this case, as made up in accordance with the pleadings and as tried before the trial judge, it was absolutely unnecessary for the Supreme Court to pass upon the merits of the case in refusing jurisdiction of the case. We do not feel bound by the Supreme Court’s decision save to accept the jurisdiction of the case.

Rehearing refused.
exv10wjj



 






Exhibit 10(jj)




March 10, 2005




CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




MAJOR MEDICAL & DENTAL BENEFITS




     Benefits include all medical and dental expenses covered under the PCS US salaried/non hourly
employees Plan. Covered expenses include medical and dental expenses incurred for services rendered
or supplies purchased in the United States. Coverage outside the United States is provided for
emergency services.



	 	 	 
	Individual Deductible Amount

	 	$250
	Family Deductible Amount

	 	$500
	Annual Out of Pocket Maximum

	 	$1,250 individual

$2,500 family

	Percentage Reimbursements

	 	90%
	 
	 	 
	MEDICAL

	 
	 	 
	Maximum Aggregate per Individual

	 	$1,000,000 per lifetime

	Annual Reinstatement Amount

	 	$10,000
	Maximum Medical Travel Amount
(per Individual)

	 	None

	 
	 	 
	DENTAL

	 
	 	 
	Maximum Dental Amount per Individual

	 	$8,000 per calendar year

	 
	 	 
	OTHER SPECIFIC LIMITS & MAXIMUMS
ARE LISTED BELOW:

	 
	 	 
	STANDARD COVERED EXPENSES
	 	 
	Maximum Nursing Services Amount

	 	180 day maximum per year

	 
	 	 
	HOSPITAL COVERED EXPENSES
	 	 
	Hospital Daily Amount

	 	Reasonable and customary

	 
	 	 
	PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERED EXPENSES
	 	 
	In US

	 	$10/$20 copay

	In Canada

	 	Only when traveling

	Out of Country

	 	Only when traveling

	Maximum Lifestyle Drugs Amount
	 	$500 per calendar year







 









 






	 	 	 
	PARAMEDICAL COVERED EXPENSES
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Chiropractic Services

	 	Subject to medical necessity

	Physiotherapist Services

	 	Subject to medical necessity

	Acupuncturist Services

	 	Only when used for anesthesia

	Podiatrist Services

	 	Subject to medical necessity

	Speech Therapist Services

	 	Subject to medical necessity

	 
	 	 
	EXTRACARE COVERED EXPENSES
	 	 
	Convalescent Hospital Daily Amount

	 	Reasonable and customary

	Maximum Number of Days of
Convalescent Hospital Confinement

	 	180 day maximum per year

	Maximum Visits to Psychologist
or Social Worker

	 	60 visits per year

	Maximum Eye Examination Amount

	 	Reasonable and customary

Once every 12 months

	Eyeglass, Frame or Contact Lens Amount

	 	$1,000 per
24 consecutive months
#### Kenneth L. BRUMFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-2122.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 11, 2003.

Before KEITH, COLE, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

This matter is before the court upon receipt of an order entered by the district court upon remand from this court.

A review of the documents before the court indicates that the district court dismissed the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action and denied a certificate of appealability by orders entered June 25, 2002. The petitioner appealed. By order entered March 11, 2003, this court remanded that case to the district court for it to reconsider its order regarding a certificate of appealability. By order filed March 21, 2003, the district court reconsidered its order and indicated that the dismissal of the § 2255 motion as untimely was in error. The district court has requested that this court vacate the district court’s decision and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the district court’s decision entered June 25, 2002 is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings on petitioner’s § 2255 motion to vacate.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

LEANDRE R. JENNINGS,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

CRAIG GAMBLE, TSCI Warden; and ROB 

JEFFERIES, Director;

Respondents.

8:23CV181

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). Filing No. 2. Habeas corpus cases attacking the legality of a 

person’s confinement require the payment of a $5.00 fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). As 

indicated in the Court’s records, Petitioner paid the $5.00 fee on May 22, 2023. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, Filing No. 2,

is denied as moot. The next step in this case is for the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of the habeas corpus petition in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 cases. The Court will conduct this review in its normal course of business

and will address Petitioner’s pending motion for appointment of counsel, Filing No. 4, at 

that time.

Dated this 25th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00181-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 05/25/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 66
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

                            THE LUPTON COMPANY, LLC
                              702 TALLAN BUILDING
                              TWO UNION SQUARE
                         CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 37402




                                 March 31, 1999


PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Ms. Cindy L. Davis, President
The Arnold Palmer Golf Company
6201 Mountain View Road
Ooltewah, TN 37363

     Re: Arnold Palmer Golf Company - Regarding Term Loans and
         Revolving Credit Loan of Northern Trust Company

Dear Cindy:

     The Trustees of the John T. Lupton Trust have written to you two letters
concerning the waiver of interest on the loans set and described below by
letters dated January 19, 1999 and March 29, 1999.

     1.  The term loan to APGC (the "Borrower") evidenced by that certain Term
Note dated as of December 30, 1996 of Borrower payable to the order of the Bank
in the original amount of $12,000,000.

     2.  The term loan to APGC evidenced by that certain Term Note dated as of
December 29, 1997 of the Borrower payable to the order of the Bank in the
original amount of $10,000,000.

     3.  The revolving credit loan to APGC evidenced by that certain $12,000,000
face amount Master Note dated as of December 29, 1997.

     Although it was not so stated in such letters, this is to request that the
interest so waived be treated as a contribution to the capital of the Arnold
Palmer Golf Company by the John T. Lupton Trust.

          Yours very truly,
<PAGE>   2
          John T. Lupton Trust
          U/W Thomas Cartter Lupton


          /s/ David S. Gonzenbach
          --------------------------------
          David S. Gonzenbach, Trustee


          /s/ John T. Lupton
          --------------------------------
          John T. Lupton, Trustee


          /s/ Joel W. Richardson, Jr.
          --------------------------------
          Joel W. Richardson, Jr., Trustee
#### William Donald YOUNSE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. W. S. HACKETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4910.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 8, 1935.

Elder & Elder, of Ruston, for appellant.

J. Norman Coon, of Monroe, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This case involves the same issues and facts as the case styled W. D. Younse v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Company, Inc., No. 4864 on the docket of this court, 159 So. 611. The only reason that it bears a different number is due to the fact that in case No. 4864 defendant Southern Advance Bag & Paper Company, Inc., which was cast in that suit, perfected an appeal. The other defendant, W. S. Haekett, was not east and, of course, did not appeal. At a later date, plaintiff perfected an appeal as to Haekett and therefore the case, upon reaching this court, was given a different number on our docket.

We have decided all the issues in the suit of Younse v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Company, Inc., No. 4864, decided this day, in which we affirmed the judgment of the lower *618court in all respects, except to increase the amount of the award.

It therefore follows that the judgment of the lower court in this ease is affirmed for the reasons given in case No. 4864; cost of appeal to be paid by appellants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-170-01-SM

Linda Tremblay

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 26) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the October 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than June 26, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00170-SM Document 27 Filed 06/15/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: September 25, 2006 at 11:30 AM

Jury Selection: October 3, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

June 15, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Paul Maggiotto, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00170-SM Document 27 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 87 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 87

Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a 
 repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent 
    nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 11, 2002

 Mr. Barton of Texas (for himself, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Upton, Mr. Towns, 
 Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. 
   Rush, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Shimkus, and Mr. Pickering) introduced the 
  following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a 
 repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent 
    nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That there hereby is approved 
the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for a repository, with respect to 
which a notice of disapproval was submitted by the Governor of the 
State of Nevada on April 8, 2002.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11311 and #11312] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 6. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated 06/28/2008. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms and Flooding.                     

*Incident Period:*                         06/01/2008 through 08/13/2008.                     

*Effective Date:*                         09/04/2008.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         09/30/2008.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         03/30/2009.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,  U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri, dated 06/28/2008 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 09/30/2008. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8-21263 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-4 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the
“Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that:

| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 19, 2018, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC,
Santander Consumer USA Inc., Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-4 and Wilmington Trust, National Association (the “Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report 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 Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.
| | ---------------------------
| |                            
| | By:                        
| | Name:                      
| | Title:                     
| | Date:                      
| |                            
| | By:                        
| | Name:                      
| | Title:                     
| | Date:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7130

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY ANTONIO SIMMONS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00653-BHH-1)

Submitted: December 17, 2020 Decided: December 22, 2020

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Antonio Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Antonio Simmons appeals the district court’s text order denying Simmons’ 

second motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 

No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Upon review of the record, we find no reversible error in the 

court’s denial of relief. See United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667, 671 (4th Cir. 2020) 

(explaining that we review de novo “the scope of a district court’s sentencing authority 

under the First Step Act”). Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Simmons, No. 2:10-

cr-00653-BHH-1 (D.S.C. June 8, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Sam L. Susser, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Susser Holdings Corporation;

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 present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5) The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the board of directors of the registrant:

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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                    |  |                             |  |                                                    
|------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 2, 2007 |  | SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION
|                    |  |                            
|                    |  | By                          |  | /s/    SAM L.
SUSSER                               
|                    |  |                             |  | Sam L. Susser President and Chief Executive Officer
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 0 9

- 00 188

- CR

______________________________

MARKEASE DONTRELL MCCARTY , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court

Delta County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6889

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Mo rriss2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Markease Dontrell McCarty appeals from his adjudication of guilt on three separate counts

of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and resulting sentence of life imprisonment

. McCarty has

filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all of his appeals. 1 He argues that the

trial co urt committed reversible error by failing to remove a potent ial witness from the

courtroom, and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to present any evidence in

his favor

.

We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on McCarty ’ s appeal in cause

number 06

- 0 9

- 00187

- CR . For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not

been shown in this case.

We affirm the trial court ’ s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 28, 2010

Date Decided: Septe mber 29 , 2010

Do Not Publish

1 McCarty appeals from three convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child, cause numbers 06

- 09

- 00187

- CR

through 06

- 09

- 00189

- CR

.