alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT      24 - POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**POWER      OF ATTORNEY**

| Directors                               |   | Date                          |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                                    |   |                          |
| /s/                Beauford E. Davidson |   | March                15, 2007 |
| Beauford                E. Davidson     |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
| /s/                Patrick B. Langford  |   | March                15, 2007 |
| Patrick                B. Langford      |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
| /s/                Lewis J. Nobles, Jr. |   | March                15, 2007 |
| Lewis                J. Nobles, Jr.     |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
| /s/                Jon R. Olliff        |   | March                15, 2007 |
| Jon                R. Olliff            |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
| /s/                James O'Quinn        |   | March                15, 2007 |
| James                O'Quinn            |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
| /s/                Stephen L. Price     |   | March                15, 2007 |
| Stephen                L. Price         |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
| /s/                Bernard T. Rasmussen |   | March                15, 2007 |
| Bernard                T. Rasmussen     |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
|                                    |   |                          |
| /s/                Daniel G. Rosbough   |   | March                15, 2007 |
| Daniel                G. Rosbough       |   |                          |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. HILARIO QUINTERO-RODRIGUEZ,

 a/k/a “The Big Guy,”, a/k/a “Santa Claus,”

2. ABEL LAST NAME UNKNOWN (LNU),

3. OCTAVIO QUEZADA-PEREZ,

 a/k/a “Tavi,”

4. FLODINA BELETSO GALLEGOS,

5. GUADALUPE RUIZ-GUARDADO,

 a/k/a “Lupe,”

6. JULIO MARES-RUIZ,

 a/k/a “Mariano,”

7. LUIS JORGE MARTINEZ-VALDIVA, and

8. ROBERT MASON BYAS,

 a/k/a “Robin,”

Defendants.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#209) on March 4, 2012, by Defendant Luis Jorge Martinez-Valdiva. The Court construes this

Notice as a motion to change his plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’

plea agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

pending determination of those matters. 

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 218 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for May 24, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. and a Sentencing

hearing is set for August 20, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. in the United States District

Court for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S.

Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

3. The final trial preparation conference set for May 24, 2012, and the May 29,

2012, trial date are VACATED as to Defendant Martinez-Valdiva, only.

DATED this 8th day of March, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 218 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
II 

Calendar No. 220 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 185 

[Report No. 110–90] 

To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. BROWN, Mr. 

SALAZAR, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. DODD, 

Mr. HARKIN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. OBAMA, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. KERRY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. 

KENNEDY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. 

STABENOW, and Mr. BYRD) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JUNE 26, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

A BILL 

To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United 

States. 

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


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

S 185 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Habeas Corpus Res3 toration Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DE5 TAINED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2241 of title 28, United 

7 States Code, is amended by striking subsection (e). 

8 (b) TITLE 10.—Section 950j of title 10, United 

9 States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and 

10 inserting the following: 

11 ‘‘(b) LIMITED REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION

12 PROCEDURES AND ACTIONS.—Except as otherwise pro13 vided in this chapter or in section 2241 of title 28 or any 

14 other habeas corpus provision, and notwithstanding any 

15 other provision of law, no court, justice, or judge shall 

16 have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause 

17 of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or 

18 filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Com19 missions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, 

20 or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, 

21 including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of 

22 military commissions under this chapter.’’. 

23 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY. 

24 The amendments made by this Act shall— 

25 (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of 

26 this Act; and 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
3 

S 185 RS

1 (2) apply to any case that is pending on or 

2 after the date of enactment of this Act. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
Calendar No. 220 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 185 

[Report No. 110

–90] 

A BILL 

To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the 

J

United States. 

UNE 26, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
1

This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E.

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00433-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ANTHONY C. JONES,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

Due to a conflict arising on the court’s calendar, the continuation of the jury trial

in 10-cv-01569-REB-KMT, Duran v. Koehler, the sentencing hearing set for Friday,

November 2, 2012, is VACATED and is CONTINUED pending further order of court. 

On October 31, 2012, commencing at 10:00 a.m., the court shall conduct a telephonic

setting conference to reset the sentencing hearing in this matter. Counsel for the

government shall arrange, initiate, and coordinate the conference call necessary to

facilitate the setting conference. 

Dated: October 22, 2012

Case 1:11-cr-00433-REB Document 36 Filed 10/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Arctic Cat Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                    |  |                                                                    
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 10, 2011 |  | /s/ TIMOTHY C. DELMORE 
Timothy C. Delmore, Chief Financial
Officer
**
EXHIBIT 23.1 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement No. 333-209738 and 333-209738-01 of First National Master Note Trust and First National Funding LLC on Form SF-3 of our report dated March 25, 2019,relating to the Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB for First National Bank of Omaha appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of First NationalMaster Note Trust and First National Funding LLC for the year ended December 31, 2018. 

/s/ Deloitte &Touche LLP Omaha, Nebraska 

March 25, 2019 
**
#### BRAUNSTEIN et al. v. McKENNEY.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

July 16, 1954.

Marks, Gray, Yates & Conroy, Harry T. Gray, Francis P. Conroy and Sam R. Marks, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Price & Stewart, Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.

*853TERRELL, Justice.

December 11, 1951, W. F. McKenney »vas injured in an automobile accident. He instituted this suit against appellants, owners of the truck which caused the accident, to recover damages for personal injuries. July 8, 1952, when the case came on for trial, the plaintiff amended his complaint by adding the following paragraph:

> “That by reason of his injuries alleged, Plaintiff has lost complete physical control and on September 14th, 1952, was thereby caused to suffer further injuries and fractures by losing control and falling from his motor, scooter and Plaintiff will continue to be subjected to the risk of further bodily injuries by reason of the injuries sustained as a result of the negligence of Defendants’ driver.”

Trial before a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $15,000, a new trial was denied and defendants appealed.

The point for determination is whether or not the trial court committed error in allowing evidence as to the second accident and injuries alleged to have resulted therefrom, to go to the jury.

We think this question requires an affirmative answer. The second accident took place as plaintiff was riding on a motor scooter on a heavily travelled street. The two accidents occurred about nine months apart, and the evidence was insufficient to show that the injury received in the first accident was the proximate cause of the second accident. Under such circumstances, the trial court should have determined, as a matter of law,, that the defendants were not liable for the injuries sustained in the second accident and should have withdrawn from the jury a consideration of this question.

For the reasons so stated, the judgment is reversed and a new trial is awarded.

Reversed and remanded.

ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
216 La. 763

#### SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY et al. v. STATE MINERAL BOARD et al.

No. 39656.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1950.

F„ P. Jones, Jr., Houston, Tex., Liskow & Lewis, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., Carroll Buck, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Madden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appel-lee.

McCALEB, Justice.

This case was consolidated for all purposes with the suit of The Texas Company v. State Mineral Board et al., 216 La. 742, 44 So.2d 841. The decision in' that matter controls here.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
#### SOLOMON v. KEOUGH.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1835 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1835

    To require a report and audit on the transfer of personnel and 
               functions from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 19, 2007

Mr. Lautenberg (for himself and Mr. Menendez) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require a report and audit on the transfer of personnel and 
               functions from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.

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

SECTION 1. CONDITIONS ON FUNDING TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL AND FUNCTIONS 
              FROM FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY.

    (a) Conditions.--The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the 
Army shall not fund the transfer of personnel or functions from Fort 
Monmouth, New Jersey, pursuant to the recommendations of the Defense 
Base Closure and Realignment Commission contained in the report 
transmitted to Congress on September 15, 2005, under section 2903(e) of 
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title 
XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) until at least 30 days 
after the date on which the Comptroller General completes an audit of a 
report of the Secretary of Defense stating that the movement of 
organizations, functions, or activities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen 
Proving Ground will be accomplished without disruption of their support 
to the global war on terror or other critical contingency operations 
and that safeguards exist to ensure that necessary redundant 
capabilities are put in place to mitigate potential degradation of such 
support and to ensure maximum retention of critical workforce, as 
required by the Commission recommendations.
    (b) Submission of Report.--The report and audit referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be submitted to--
            (1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
        Appropriations, the Committee on Education and Labor, and the 
        Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
        Representatives; and
            (2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
        Appropriations, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
        Pensions, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
        Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-14-2002

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 99-3980

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 360.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/360
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ____________________ 

 

 No. 99-3980 

 _______________ 

 

 NORMAN GRAYSON, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 MAYVIEW STATE HOSPITAL; ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL; CAMP HILL 

 PRISON 

 

 *United States of America, 

 Intervenor 

 *(Pursuant to Court Order dated 4/4/01) 

 ________________ 

 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Civil Action No. 99-479) 

 District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster 

 ________________ 

 

 Argued: April 6, 2001 

 Before: SCIRICA, AMBRO and GIBSON, Circuit Judges** 

 (Filed: June 7, 2002) 

 

 ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION 

AMBRO, Circuit Judge 

 It is now ordered that the Slip Opinion in the above case filed June 7, 2002, 

be amended as follows: 

 On Page 6, paragraph 2, line 11, replace the word "Oklahoma" with the 

word "Brown", so that the full cite reads: See Bd. Of County Comm’rs of Bryan County v. 

Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997); 

 and, 

 On page 14, footnote 16, line 7, delete "S14408-01, *" so that the cite 

reads: Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 n.11 (citing 141 Cong. Rec. S14414 (1995) (emphasis 

added)). 

 By the Court, 

 /s/ Thomas L. Ambro 

 Circuit Judge 
Dated: June 14, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1701 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1701

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide for the extension of transitional medical assistance (TMA) 
  and the abstinence education program through the end of fiscal year 
                     2007, 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. EXTENSION OF TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE (TMA) AND 
              ABSTINENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM THROUGH THE END OF FISCAL 
              YEAR 2007.

    Section 401 of division B of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 
2006 (Public Law 109-432) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``June 30'' and inserting ``September 30''; 
        and
            (2) by striking ``third quarter'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``fourth quarter''.

SEC. 2. SUNSET OF THE LIMITED CONTINUOUS ENROLLMENT PROVISION FOR 
              CERTAIN BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE MEDICARE ADVANTAGE 
              PROGRAM.

    Section 1851(e)(2)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
21(e)(2)(E)), as added by section 206(a) of division B of the Tax 
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``2007 or 2008'' and 
        inserting ``the period beginning on January 1, 2007, and ending 
        on July 31, 2007,''; and
            (2) in clause (iii)--
                    (A) in the heading, by striking ``year'' and 
                inserting ``the applicable period''; and
                    (B) by striking ``the year'' and inserting ``the 
                period described in such clause''.

SEC. 3. OFFSETTING ADJUSTMENT IN MEDICARE ADVANTAGE STABILIZATION FUND.

    Section 1858(e)(2)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395w-27a(e)(2)(A)(i)), as amended by 301 of division B of the Tax 
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, is amended by striking ``the Fund 
during the period'' and all that follows and inserting ``the Fund--
                                    ``(I) during 2012, $1,600,000,000; 
                                and
                                    ``(II) during 2013, 
                                $1,790,000,000.''.

            Passed the Senate June 27, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1701

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To provide for the extension of transitional medical assistance (TMA) 
  and the abstinence education program through the end of fiscal year 
                     2007, and for other purposes.
```
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Eastland County Appraisal District * From the 91st District Court

and Brown County Appraisal District, of Eastland County,

Trial Court No. CV1644175

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 135

- CV * June 13, 2019

Peninsula Pipelines (North Texas), LLC, * Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Willson, J., and Wright

, S.C. J.

, sitting by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance with this

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal

are taxed against the party incurring same.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

TOMMIE LEE GAY, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D15-352 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed June 15, 2016. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Lisa Campbell, Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

VILLANTI, Chief Judge. 

 In this Anders1 appeal, Tommie Lee Gay appeals his judgment and 

sentence for battery. We affirm the judgment and sentence imposed without comment. 

However, because the written order of probation differed from the trial court's oral 

 1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 
- 2 -

pronouncement of sentence, we reverse and remand for entry of a corrected written 

order of probation. 

 Gay was found guilty of battery (domestic violence, second or subsequent 

offense) following a jury trial. At sentencing, the trial court orally sentenced Gay to 

twenty-four months' probation and ordered him to complete fifty hours of community 

service at a minimum rate of four hours per month. The written order of probation 

mirrored the sentence pronounced in open court, except that the written order required 

the community service hours to be completed at a minimum rate of five hours per 

month. 

 A trial court's written sentence must conform to its oral pronouncement; 

when the two differ, that constitutes reversible error. See Rivera v. State, 34 So. 3d 

207, 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). In this case, the written order of probation differs from the 

trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence as to the rate at which Gay must complete 

his community service hours. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to 

amend the written order of probation to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement 

of this condition. In all other aspects, we affirm. 

 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 

WALLACE and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.