alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ernest WRIGHT v. STATE.

8 Div. 164.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 21, 1935.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The indictment against this appellant charged that he unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, killed Calvin Cox, by shooting him with a gun, but without premeditation or deliberation, etc. The foregoing is a valid indictment and charges the accused with the offense of murder in the second degree.

The trial of this case resulted in the conviction of the defendant for the offense of manslaughter in the first degree and his punishment was fixed at eight years. Judgment of conviction was accordingly pronounced and entered, and the court duly sentenced him to imprisonment in the penitentiary for eight years. From the judgment of conviction this appeal was taken. The appeal is here submitted upon the record proper. There is no bill of exceptions.

The record has been examined and is regular in all respects. No error appearing, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-50782

Conference Calendar

 

REYNALDO REYES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STELLA SAXON,

Judge, 81st Judicial District Court,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-96-CV-672

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 197

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo Reyes, Texas prisoner #648638, moves for leave to

appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the district court’s dismissal of

his civil rights complaint. Reyes has complied with the

certification requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of

1995 (PLRA) and his motion for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 
No. 96-50782

-2-

Reyes is ORDERED to pay an initial partial filing fee of

$1.53, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Following 

payment of the initial partial filing fee, the remainder will be

deducted from Reyes’s prison trust-fund account until the entire

filing fee is paid. § 1915(b)(2).

IT IS ORDERED that Reyes pay the appropriate filing fee to

the Clerk of the District Court for the Western District of

Texas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of

Reyes forward the initial partial filing fee to the Clerk. 

Thereafter, the agency shall forward, in accordance with 

§ 1915(b)(2), to the Clerk of the District Court for the Western

District of Texas monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding

month’s income each time the amount in Reyes’s account exceeds

$10, until the appellate filing fee of $105 is paid. 

Reyes has identified no error in the dismissal of his civil

rights complaint. His allegations concerning the state judge who

presided over his guilty plea call into question the validity of

his conviction and sentence and may not be considered in a 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364,

2372 (1994). Furthermore, to the extent that Reyes seeks damages

from the judge, his claim is barred by absolute immunity. See

Krueger v. Reimer, 66 F.3d 75, 77 (5th Cir. 1995).

Reyes’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th
No. 96-50782

-3-

Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Reyes that future frivolous civil suits

and appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the

imposition of sanctions. Reyes is cautioned further to review 

any pending suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will be conducted via telephone conference call. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, November 12, 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will be held Wednesday, November 12, 2008, from 1 to 2 p.m. Eastern Time via a telephone conference call. The public is invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. For information or to confirm attendance, notification of intent to attend the meeting must be made with Audrey Y. Jenkins. Ms. Jenkins may be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 488-2085. Send written comments to Audrey Y. Jenkins, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made in advance.                 

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

Dated: September 26, 2008. 

Roy L. Block, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E8-23638 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### HORSLEY v. EVANS.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed June

18 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00462- CV

IN RE NATHAN BRADLEY HANKINS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 328th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18- DCV -251355



### MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 10, 2019, relator Nathan Bradley Hankins filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable John
R. Millard , presiding judge of the 328th District Court of Fort Bend County , to vacate2

his May 17, 2019 order requiring relator to pay interim attorney’s fees of $38,800

.

. Relator also has filed a motion for temporary relief , asking this court to stay this order pending a decision on his petition

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. With certain exceptions not applicable in this proceeding, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal . In re Prudential
Ins. Co

. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Poissant

.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

SENIOR JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

Courtroom Deputy: Robert R. Keech

E.C.R./Reporter: Tracy Weir

Date: November 18, 2015

Civil Action No: 11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS

RESON LEE WOODS and

SHAUN K. WOODS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF

DURANGO, a chartered National Bank,

Defendant.

Counsel:

David H. Wollins

Shay L. Denning

COURTROOM MINUTES

MOTION HEARING

10:03 a.m. Court in Session

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL.

Court’s opening remarks.

Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees [ECF Doc. No. 190], filed August 27,

2015, is raised for argument.

10:09 a.m. Argument by Defendant (Ms. Denning).

10:10 a.m. Argument by Plaintiffs (Mr. Wollins).

Court announces findings.

-1-

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS Document 203 Filed 11/18/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [ECF Doc. No. 190], filed August 27,

2015, is DENIED for the reasons set forth on the record.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or in the Alternative Motion for New

Trial [ECF Doc. No. 195], filed September 10, 2015, is raised for argument.

10:30 a.m. Argument by Plaintiffs (Mr. Wollins).

10:35 a.m. Argument by Defendant (Ms. Denning).

10:38 a.m. Argument by Plaintiffs (Mr. Wollins).

Court announces findings.

ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or in the Alternative Motion for New

Trial [ECF Doc. No. 195], filed September 10, 2015, is DENIED for the reasons

set forth on the record.

10:46 a.m. Court in Recess - HEARING CONCLUDED.

TOTAL TIME: :43

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS Document 203 Filed 11/18/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00422-REB-02

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

2. HAI MANH DO,

Defendant.

 

ORDER EXONERATING BOND

This criminal action has proceeded to sentencing and a final judgment and

conviction, and the defendant was remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal at

sentencing, or has self-surrendered to the designated facility, as confirmed by the United

States Bureau of Prisons. As a result, all the conditions of an appearance bond imposed by

the court as a pretrial matter to secure the defendant’s release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3142(c), have been satisfied. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the bond in this case is hereby exonerated and the surety or

sureties, if applicable, are released. It is further 

ORDERED that the bail funds or property deposited into the registry of the court shall

hereby be released by the clerk of the court, or a designated deputy, to the surety or the

defendant. 

Dated April 2, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cr-00422-REB Document 239 Filed 04/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1433 

To amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to provide 

competitive status to certain Federal employees in the State of Alaska. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2007 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act to provide competitive status to certain Federal employees in the State of Alaska. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Thomas P. O’Hara 

5 Public Land Career Opportunity Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPETITIVE STATUS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL EM7 PLOYEES IN THE STATE OF ALASKA. 

8 Section 1308 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

9 Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3198) is amended— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1433 IS

1 (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as 

2 subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(c) COMPETITIVE STATUS.—An individual ap6 pointed to a permanent position under subsection (a) shall 

7 be converted to competitive status after— 

8 ‘‘(1) if the appointment is full time, the comple9 tion of 2 years of competitive and satisfactory full 

10 time service; or 

11 ‘‘(2) if the appointment is less than full time, 

12 the period that is equivalent to 2 years of competi13 tive and satisfactory full time service.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 4.2

                             SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE

                       TO INDENTURE DATED AUGUST 15, 1997

         THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE dated as of March 2, 2000, is delivered
pursuant to Section 4.11 of the Indenture dated as of August 15, 1997 (as
heretofore or hereafter modified and supplemented and in effect from time to
time, the "1997 Indenture") among OUTDOOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, certain of its subsidiaries (the "Guarantors") and FIRST UNION
NATIONAL BANK, a national banking corporation, as Trustee (the "Trustee") (all
terms used herein without definition having the meanings ascribed to them in
the 1997 Indenture).

         The undersigned hereby agrees that:

         1. The undersigned is a Guarantor under the 1997 Indenture with all of
the rights and obligations of the Guarantors thereunder.

         2. The undersigned has granted, ratified and confirmed, in the form
and substance of Exhibit B to the 1997 Indenture, the Guarantee provided for by
Article XI of the 1997 Indenture.

         3. The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that the
representations and warranties set forth in the 1997 Indenture, to the extent
relating to the undersigned as Guarantor, are correct on and as of the date
hereof.

         4. All notices, requests and other communications provided for in the
1997 Indenture should be delivered to the undersigned at the following address:

            Keith A. Istre
            Vice President - Finance and
            Chief Financial Officer
            Lamar Media Corp. and its Subsidiaries
            5551 Corporate Blvd.
            Baton Rouge, LA 70808

         5. A counterpart of this Supplemental Indenture may be attached to any
counterpart of the 1997 Indenture.

         6. This Supplemental Indenture shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York.

<PAGE>   2

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Supplemental
Indenture to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

                                   Guarantor:

                                   LAMAR ADVAN, INC.
                                   a Pennsylvania corporation

                                   By:  /s/ Keith A. Istre
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Keith A. Istre
                                        Vice President - Finance and Chief
                                        Financial Officer
Attest:

By:    /s/ James R. McIlwain
     ----------------------------
     James R. McIlwain, Secretary

Accepted:

FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK, as Trustee

By:        /s/ Joanne M. Gonot
      ----------------------------
Title:   Assistant Vice President
      ----------------------------
<PAGE>   3

                        Additional Subsidiary Guarantors

Lamar Advertising of Iowa, Inc.
Interstate Logos, L.L.C.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 19, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-16274

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00130-CR-T-26-EAJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JOHN MADDOX, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

 (July 19, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Lee Maddox appeals the 84-month prison sentence the district court
2

imposed following his plea of guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Maddox contends that the sentence is

unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of

sentencing set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He suggests that a prison sentence

within the Guidelines sentence range of 51 to 63 months, which he believes the

court should have adopted, would be reasonable, especially in light of these facts:

(1) although his possession of the firearm was illegal, he needed the gun to protect

himself; (2) as the presentence investigation report indicates, he endured physical

and emotional abuse as a child which resulted in his running away at age 15 – the

age when his problems with drugs commenced. 

In determining whether a sentence is unreasonable, we are mindful that

“[a]fter the district court has accurately calculated the Guideline range, it may

impose a more severe or more lenient sentence” than the sentence prescribed by

that range. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1244-1245 (11th Cir. 2005)

(internal quotations omitted). The district court is guided by the factors set forth in

§ 3553(a). Id. at 1246. These factors include the available sentences, applicable

guideline range, nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need for the

sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and

provide just punishment for the offense and needed medical care. 18 U.S.C. §
3

3553(a). 

We conclude that the challenged sentence is not unreasonable. The sentence

is within the applicable Guidelines range of 77 to 96 months imprisonment, is less

than the maximum prescribed by statute, and takes into consideration, among other

things, Maddox’s criminal history and characteristics, and the need for the sentence

to provide adequate deterrence and protect the public. 

AFFIRMED.
817 A.2d 316

#### IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL A. MALAT, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

March 12, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-270, concluding that SAMUEL A. MALAT of HADDON HEIGHTS, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1989, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating *RPC*3.3(a)(l)(knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal), *RPC*3.3(a)(5)(knowingly failing to disclose to tribunal a material fact), *RPC*8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), *RPC*8.4(d)(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SAMUEL A. MALAT is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective April 7, 2003; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

*555ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
BE IT REMEMBERED:

THAT at the term of the Honorable Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of the State of Texas, begun and holden at Waco on the 1st day of January, 2015, present Chief Justice TOM GRAY and Justices REX D. DAVIS and AL SCOGGINS

In the cause

No. 10-15-00224-CR

IN RE TRACY HICKS

Original Proceeding

the following Judgment was entered on the 23rd day of July, 2015:

“Came on to be heard the original Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed in this Court on June 18, 2015, by Relator Tracy Hicks, and the same having been considered, because it is the opinion of the Court that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus should be denied in part and dismissed in part; it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus be, and hereby is, denied on issue one and dismissed on issues two through five for lack of jurisdiction.  It is further ordered that the Relator Tracy Hicks, pay all costs in this behalf expended and incurred in this Court.”

I, SHARRI ROESSLER, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of Texas, at the City of Waco, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Judgment entered herein by this Court in the above entitled and numbered cause as appears of record in Minute Book 13, Page 565.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said Court at Waco, this 23rd day of July A.D. 2015.

SHARRI ROESSLER, Clerk

By:     Nita Whitener                                        

Deputy Clerk

# image1.png
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02563-WJM-MEH

STEPHEN SECOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED HEALTHCARE OF COLORADO, INC.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 1, 2011.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [filed October 28, 2011;

docket #9] is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and

Jury Demand [docket #9-1]. Defendant shall file an answer or other response to the Amended

Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

Case 1:11-cv-02563-WJM-MEH Document 11 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
### THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECED ENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PR OVIDED BY RULE 268(D)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Robert Coake and Susan Coake, Respondents,

v.

Kathleen Burt, n/k/a Kath leen Thomason, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2011-188246

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Anderson County J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 2012-M O-056 Heard December 6, 2012 – Filed December 19, 2012

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Harold P. Threlkeld, of Anderson, for Petitioner.

James Allbright Blair III and Kirsten Elena Small, both of Nexsen Pruet, of Gree nville, for Respondents.PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals finding the circuit court erred in dir ecting a verdict in favor of the seller of residential real estate because the issues of the reasonableness of the purchasers' inspection of the real estate prior to closing and the damages incurred from the seller's alleged incomplete or misleading disclosures on the inspection form were questions that should have been resolved by the jury. See Coake v. Burt , 391 S.C. 201, 705 S.E.2d 453 (Ct. App. 2010). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,

concur.