alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00134-CR

MICHAEL DAVID FREDRICKSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 21st District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14,371

ORDER

Michael David Fredrickson was convicted of injury to a child and sentenced to 20 

years in prison. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04 (West 2011). On December 11, 2014, this 

appeal was abated to the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law 

regarding Fredrickson’s motion to suppress evidence and motion to suppress 

statements, both heard and ruled on by the trial court on February 24, 2014. 

A supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law was filed with the Court on January 20, 2015. Accordingly, this 
Fredrickson v. State Page 2

appeal is reinstated. A supplemental brief, if any, by Fredrickson concerning the 

motions to suppress must be filed within 30 days from the date the supplemental clerk’s 

record was filed. The State may file a response within 21 days from the date a 

supplemental brief, if any, is filed by Fredrickson.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal reinstated

Supplemental brief due

Order issued and filed January 29, 2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4271

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RAHEEN ROBINSON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:96-cr-00085-REP-2)

Submitted: February 16, 2010 Decided: March 1, 2010

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V. 

Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raheen Robinson appeals the district court’s judgment 

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eighteen 

months’ imprisonment. Robinson’s counsel filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether 

the sentence, which is above the policy statement range but 

within the statutory maximum, is plainly unreasonable. Robinson

was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, 

but he did not file one.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the 

district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy 

statement range of four to ten months and the statutory 

sentencing factors in imposing a sentence above the policy 

statement range but within the statutory maximum set forth in 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). We therefore conclude that the 

sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not 

plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 

433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of
3

his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Robinson requests that a petition be filed, 

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Robinson. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 175 

To provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water supplies 

of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served 

by the District. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment 

the water supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served by the District. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MASTER CONSERVATORY 

4 DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY. 

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

6 (1) Thunderbird Lake, located on Little River 

7 in central Oklahoma, was constructed in 1965 by the 

8 Bureau of Reclamation for flood control, water sup9 ply, recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes; 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 175 IS

1 (2) the available yield of Thunderbird Lake is 

2 allocated to the Central Oklahoma Master Conserv3 atory District, which supplies municipal and indus4 trial water supplies to the cities of Norman, Midwest 

5 City, and Del City, Oklahoma; and 

6 (3) studies conducted by the Bureau during fis7 cal year 2003 indicate that the District will require 

8 additional water supplies to meet the future needs of 

9 the District, including through— 

10 (A) the drilling of additional wells; 

11 (B) the implementation of a seasonal pool 

12 plan at Thunderbird Lake; 

13 (C) the construction of terminal storage to 

14 hold wet-weather yield from Thunderbird Lake; 

15 (D) a reallocation of water storage; and 

16 (E) the importation of surplus water from 

17 sources outside the basin of Thunderbird Lake. 

18 (b) STUDY.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

19 enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of the Bureau 

20 of Reclamation shall conduct a feasibility study of alter21 natives to augment the water supplies of the Central Okla22 homa Master Conservatory District and cities served by 

23 the District, including recommendations of the Commis24 sioner, if any. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 175 IS

1 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

2 authorized to be appropriated to the Commissioner of the 

3 Bureau of Reclamation $300,000 to conduct the study 

4 under subsection (b). 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7340
RONALD HAMILTON JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusBENJAMIN SMITH, Sergeant; A. VINCENT, Corporal; DEPUTY GATTISON, Defendants - Appellees, and NEW HANOVER COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-47) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Hamilton James, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on June 9, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on August 16, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprivesthis court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	AMOUNT:  $600,000.00	March 31, 2014


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, IIM Global Corporation (hereinafter refer lo as the, ·'Borrower"), promises to pay Penn Investments
Inc (hereafter refer to as the "Lender"), at 5301 Bacara Cove, Lake Mary, Florida 32746, or at such other place as holder
hereof may from time to time designate in writing, the principal sum of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00); with interest
accruing on the unpaid principal at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) per annum from March 31, 20 14 until paid. The aforementioned
principal sum represents monies loaned to IIM Global Corporation by Penn Investments Inc. The principal and interest under this
Promissory Note is payable in full at the end of 6 (six) months September 30, 2014. This Promissory Note may, in whole or in part,
be prepaid without penalty before the maturity date hereof.


 


Should the "Borrower " default under or
otherwise breach this Promissory Note and not cure said default or breach on or before the tenth (10th) day after the Lender gives
the Borrower written notice thereof, by personal delivery or certified mailing, all principal remaining unpaid and interest accruing
thereon shall, at the option of the lender, become immediately due and payable to the Lender. Notice shall be deemed given on the
date of personal delivery or date of mailing, whichever applies. No delay or failure in giving notice of said default or breach
shall constitute a waiver of the right of the Lender to exercise said right in the event of a subsequent or continuing default
or breach. Furthermore, in the event of such default or breach, the Borrower promises to pay the Lender all collection and/or litigation
costs incurred, including reasonable attorney fees and court costs, whether judgment is rendered or not.


 


This Promissory Note has been entered into and shall
be performed in Seminole County, Florida, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of Florida and any applicable federal
statutes or regulations of the United States. Any claims or disputes concerning this Note shall be adjudicated in Seminole County,
Florida.


 


IN WlTNESS WHEREOF, this
Agreement was executed as of the date first above written.


 


	UM Global Corporation	 	Penn Investments Inc.
	 	 	 
		 	
	Signed on behalf of IIM Global Corporation	 	Signed on behalf of Penn Investments Inc
	By David S.Jones, President & CEO.	 	By Douglas Solomon, President & CEO
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

Under the authority granted to me as Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service by the General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury by General Counsel Directive 15, pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act, I have appointed the following persons to the Legal Division Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service Panel: 

1. Chairperson, Clarissa Potter, Deputy Chief Counsel (Technical)

2. Sara M. Coe, Deputy Division Counsel (Small Business/Self Employed)

3. Curtis Wilson, Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs & Special Industries)

4. Andrew Keyso, Deputy Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting)

5. Drita Tonuzi, Deputy Division Counsel (Large & Mid-Size Business)

This publication is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

Dated: August 23, 2010.

William J. Wilkins,

Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-21325 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 31.2

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Jon Young, Chief Financial Officer of Liberty Star Gold Corp., certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Liberty Star Gold Corp.;

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.  The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, 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 company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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 company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.  The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 17, 2006

 

/s/ Jon Young 

Jon Young

Chief Financial Officer
----

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

The undersigned, Weiqiu Li and Kinwai Cheung, theChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of HOMESYSTEM GROUP (the "Company"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that: 

1.     The Company’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report"),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and 

2.     Information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operation of the Company. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned hasexecuted this statement this 7th day of April, 2008. 

| /s/ Weiqiu Li                                             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Weiqiu Li                                                 |
| Chief Executive Officer                                   |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                             |
|                                                      |
|                                                      |
| /s/ Kinwai Cheung                                         |
| Kinwai Cheung                                             |
| Chief Financial Officer                                   |
| (Principal Financial Officer and      Accounting Officer) |

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Home System Group and will be retained by HomeSystem Group and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request. 

The forgoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It isnot being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing. 

----
SecondCovisint2009LTIPPlan_Amendment1019


Exhibit 10.19




SECOND AMENDMENT TO
COVISINT CORPORATION
2009 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


WHEREAS, Covisint Corporation (the "Corporation") maintains the Covisint Corporation 2009 Long Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan"); and


WHEREAS, Section 10.6 of the Plan permits the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the "Board") to amend the Plan, subject to certain exceptions that are not relevant to this Amendment; and 


WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan as set forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


Section 3.2 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:


"The Committee shall determine the per share exercise price for each Stock Appreciation Right granted under the Plan, provided, however, that the exercise price of a Stock Appreciation Right that is not granted in tandem with an Option shall not be less than 100 percent of the Fair Market Value on the Grant Date and the exercise price of a Stock Appreciation Right that is granted in tandem with an Option shall not be less than 100 percent of the exercise price of the tandem Option." 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment has been executed on behalf of the Corporation on this 8th day of May, 2014


COVISINT CORPORATION


By:    /s/ Samuel M. Inman, III    


BOARD APPROVAL:  April 29, 2014





11
1849568.01-NYCSR05A - MSW
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Richard A. Foss, President and Chief Executive Officer and Diana Tone, Chief
Financial Officer and Compliance Officer of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") each certify in their capacity as an officer of the Company that they
have reviewed the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal
ended December 31, 2002 and that to the best of their knowledge:

     (1)  the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


March 24, 2003            /s/ Richard A. Foss
------------------        -------------------------------------------------
Date                      President and Chief Executive Officer


March 24, 2003            /s/ Diana S. Tone
------------------        -------------------------------------------------
Date                      Chief Financial Officer and Compliance Officer
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. et al., Executors of McClees’ Estate.

No. 6478.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Dec. 31, 1937.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Harry Marselli, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

E. Perry Campbell, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents.

Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and BIGGS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from an order of the Board of Tax Appeals. By reference to the opinion of the latter, which fully states the facts, we avoid needless repetition. After argument and full consideration had, we find no error in the Tax Board’s ruling, and, as no practice or principle is involved, we limit ourselves to dismissing the Commissioner’s appeal on the opinion of the Tax Board.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN FORREST ZUMBRO,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

VINCE CULLEN, Acting Warden,

MARGARITA PEREZ, Chairman, Board

of Prison Terms,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 08-17045

D.C. No. 5:06-cv-06010-RMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner John Forrest Zumbro appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

MAR 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-17045

Zumbro contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not

supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The

only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper

inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the

case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011). Because

Zumbro raises no procedural challenges, we affirm. 

Zumbro’s motion to expand the record on appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PAUL AUGE, A/K/A WALTER GOTTSABAND.

November 18, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.