alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Paul E. PRATER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 17, 1971.

*384Paul E. Prater, pro se.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., M. Curran Clem, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

DAVIS, Commissioner.

The appellant sought postconviction relief as provided by RCr 11.42, asserting, among other things, that he had inadequate assistance of counsel upon his trial which resulted in the sentence he is now serving and that his court-appointed counsel refused to process an appeal from the judgment of conviction, although the appellant asserts that he requested his attorney to do so. The conviction occurred on September 19, 1955. The sentence was imprisonment for twenty-one years for alleged violation of KRS 433.150, assault with intent to rob.

The trial court denied the motion to vacate the judgment without an evidentiary hearing. Doubtless, the trial court recognized the seemingly inevitable futility of providing an evidentiary hearing after such an inordinate lapse of time between the date of the conviction and the filing of the motion for postconviction relief. As noted in McKinney v. Commonwealth, Ky., 445 S.W.2d 874, RCr 11.42 authorizes a prisoner to seek postconviction relief “at any time.” In McKinney it was pointed out that at least to the extent of proof which would be required to sustain the motion for relief, a prisoner who has slept on his rights will bear a heavy burden to affirmatively prove the facts on which his relief must rest. A similar reference may be found in Desmond v. United States (1st Cir. 1964), 333 F.2d 378. However, in both McKinney and Desmond, an evidentiary hearing was afforded the prisoner. In Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959), the Supreme Court noted that 28 U.S.C.A. Section 2255, authorizes a prisoner to seek postconviction relief “at any time.” In Heflin the Supreme Court stated that the expression “at any time” simply means that, as in habeas corpus, there is no statute of limitations, no res judicata, and that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable.

In light of these holdings, it seems imperative that an evidentiary hearing be afforded this appellant so that he may undertake to sustain his heavy burden to convince the fact finder that he had ineffective assistance of counsel or that his appointed counsel improperly refused to take an appeal in his behalf.

The judgment is reversed for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

All concur.
SFY_ex101-05272014




AMENDMENT NO. 1 
TO THE 
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
SWIFT ENERGY COMPANY 
2005 STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN 

SWIFT ENERGY COMPANY, a Texas corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to the authority granted in Section 14(b) of the Second Amended and Restated Swift Energy Company 2005 Stock Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), hereby amends the Plan, effective as of May 20, 2014, as follows:
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Plan provides for the maximum aggregate number of shares of the Company’s common stock in respect of which Awards may be granted under the Plan as 9,075,000 shares, inclusive of the additional 2,100,000 additional shares that were approved as part of the Plan on May 21, 2013 (“Plan Maximum”); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company and the requisite number of the Company’s shareholders at the May 20, 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders have approved the Plan Maximum to be increased by up to an additional 475,000 shares:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall read as follows:
		
	1.
	Existing Section 5(b) of the Plan shall remain in its entirety except that “9,075,000” be deleted and “up to 9,550,000” be substituted in its place.


		
	1.
	Except as amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan is amended effective as of the day and year first above written.
	
			
	 
	SWIFT ENERGY COMPANY

	 
	By:
	



/s/ Bruce H. Vincent

	 
	 
	Bruce H. Vincent
President
#### NACOGDOCHES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. R. W. McKINNEY.

No. B-3826.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 17, 1974.

Benchoff & Guidry, William D. Guidry and Edmund F. Benchoff, Nacogdoches, for petitioner.

Pye & Dobbs, J. Robert Dobbs, Jr., Tyler, Barrow, Bland Rehmet & Lee, David Bland, Houston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This suit is by the Nacogdoches Independent School District against R. W. McKinney to recover taxes. This Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals judgment that had affirmed in part the trial court’s judgment against R. W. McKinney. 504 S.W.2d 832. Our judgment improperly adjudged the costs in this Court and the Court of Civil Appeals against the School District.

The School District is exempt from payment of any court costs in a suit to recover taxes. Its motion to readjudi-cate costs is well taken. Electra Independent School District v. W. T. Waggoner Estate, 140 Tex. 483, 168 S.W.2d 645 (1943) ; City of Waco v. O. O. Owens, 442 S.W.2d 324 (Tex.1969). Also see this Court’s order in Whelan v. State, 155 Tex. 14, 282 S.W.2d 378 (1955). As to the winning taxpayer, there has been inconsistency in the above cases as to what portion of the costs should be taxed. We follow *Electra, supra,*which required the winning taxpayer to pay only those costs incurred by him. This follows more nearly the spirit of Rule *6127, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides as follows:

> “Each party to a suit shall be liable for all costs incurred by him. If the costs cannot be collected from the party against whom they have been adjudged, execution may issue against any party in such suit for the amount of costs incurred by such party, but no more.”

Since this Court still has jurisdiction of the cause, it may, and does now, correct its judgment as to court costs as follows:

All court costs incurred by the defendant, R. W. McKinney, in this Court are adjudged against him and no costs are adjudged against Nacogdoches Independent School District.

All costs in the lower courts shall remain adjudged against said defendant as provided by the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, the defendant not having appealed from that portion of the judgment. Reaugh v. McCollum Exploration Co., 140 Tex. 322, 167 S.W.2d 727 (1943).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         254,527
<SECURITIES>                                   165,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  467,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,000
<INVENTORY>                                    534,672
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,498,752
<PP&E>                                       6,331,348
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,225,374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,861,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          388,011
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,648
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,825,281
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,861,869
<SALES>                                      1,347,227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,618,882
<CGS>                                          869,095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,660,795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (332,913)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                280,087
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            280,087
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   280,087
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .005
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .005
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1


UHF
INCORPORATED


CERTIFICATE
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. ss.1350











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the accompanying Amendment to the Annual Report of UHF
Incorporated, (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December
31, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Ronald C. Schmeiser, Chief Executive Officer and
President of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)         The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)         The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

















Date:  August
      15, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Ronald C.
      SchmeiserRonald
      C. SchmeiserPresident,
      Chief ExecutiveOfficer
      and Chief Financial Officer
#### Ann STUART, Appellant, v. J. Ewing STUART et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 15, 1974.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing June 21, 1974.

Charles C. Adams, Adams & Adams, Somerset, for appellant.

Thomas A. Noe, Jr., G. S. Milam, Sr., Russellville, for appellees.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Commissioner CATINNA,

Reversing.*
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)OF THE U.S. SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Queen Mining
Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008
(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                 
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Dated: August 14, 2008 | /s/
      Lutz Klingmann                                         
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                       | Lutz Klingmann                                                   
|                       | Principal Executive Officer and Principal
      Financial Officer

---
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to May 22, 2018 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### A

- 17

- 1081 State v. Butcher

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c cales/

.
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Coconino Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Flagstaff, Arizona. The purpose of the meeting is for the committee members to discuss committee protocols, operating guidelines, and project proposal requirements.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held September 23, 2010, beginning at 1 p.m. to approximately 4 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be held in the Ponderosa Room of the Coconino County Health Department, 2625 N. King, St., Flagstaff, Arizona 86004. Send written comments to Brady Smith. RAC Coordinator, Coconino Resource Advisory Committee, do Forest Service. USDA, 1824 5. Thompson St., Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 or electronically to                         *bradysmith@fs.fed.us.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brady Smith, Coconino National Forest, (928) 527-3490.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda items for this meeting include discussion about (1) Whether or not projects will need to be NEPA-ready; (2) Possible limits on proposals; (3) Roles and responsibilities of the Coconino RAC; (4) Meeting structure, voting processes and agendas; (5) Budget; and (6) Project solicitation. The meeting is open to the public.

Dated: August 17, 2010.

Carol Boyd,

Acting Forest Supervisor, Coconino National Forest.

[FR Doc. 2010-21066 Filed 8-24-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2185 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

123 South 9th Street in De Pere, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Corporal Justin 

D. Ross Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 31, 2014 

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin (for himself and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 123 South 9th Street in De Pere, Wisconsin, 

as the ‘‘Corporal Justin D. Ross Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CORPORAL JUSTIN D. ROSS POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 123 South 9th Street in De Pere, 

7 Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cor8 poral Justin D. Ross Post Office Building’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2185 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Justin D. 

5 Ross Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Gladys HORNSBY et al., Appellants, v. Corbett BROWN et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 19, 1973.

Denver Adams, Hyden, for appellants.

A. E. Cornett, Hyden, for appellees.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Special Commissioner HENRY C. COX,

Affirming.*
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Asia Interactive Media
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.



|Dated: April 2, 2007 | /s/
      Toby Chu                 | 
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------- | 
|                     | Toby Chu                           | 
|                     | President, Chief Executive Officer | 

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000769131
<NAME>                        RANCON REALTY FUND V
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         10,248
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,573
<PP&E>                                         31,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                 17,807
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 50,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          519
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     33,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   50,839
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,467
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,547
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (637)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (637)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (637)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (6.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (6.54)



</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1360 

CAF 13-01321 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF LISA A. BRETSCHER, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

DARREN A. BRETSCHER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

 

MARY R. HUMPHREY, NEW HARTFORD, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

SAUNDERS KAHLER, L.L.P., UTICA (JAMES S. RIZZO OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

PAUL M. DEEP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, UTICA.

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Frank

Steele Cook, J.H.O.), entered March 27, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant

to Family Court Act article 8. The order denied the motion of

respondent to modify an order of protection. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Matter of Romeo M. [Nicole R.], 94 AD3d 1464, 1465,

lv denied 19 NY3d 810).

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
##### 



Balance,
    
    
    
    
    
    Balance,Beginning of
    
    Additions
    
    Deductions
    
    EndYear
    
    Year
    
    (1)
    
    (2)
    
    of Year2003
    
    10,120
    
    20,028
    
    (21,810)
    
    8,3382004
    
    8,338
    
    20,067
    
    (21,302)
    
    7,1032005
    
    7,103
    
    20,414
    
    (19,669)
    
    7,848
 
 (1)
    
    Represents the increase in allowance for doubtful accounts receivable charged to
expense.(2)
    
    Represents the accounts receivable written-off against the allowance for doubtful
accounts receivable.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-31-1996             JUL-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998             APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,991,349               2,165,611
<RECEIVABLES>                                  297,970               1,489,012
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         13,960,326              13,615,510
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,249,645              17,270,133
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     253,565                 295,481
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    16,996,079              16,974,652
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,249,645              17,270,133
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              328,435                 775,836
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           737,188                 755,849
<COMMISSIONS>                                (486,510)               (500,951)
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                (35,502)                (50,675)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                543,611                 980,059
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   543,611                 980,059
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>