alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anita G. EULITT, Appellant, v. Richard H. EULITT, Respondent.

No. 26008.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.

June 25, 1973.

*191Barbieri, Combs & Gotschall, Kansas City, for appellant.

Hines & Magee, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before DIXON, C. J., and SWOFFORD and SHANGLER, JJ.

DIXON, Chief Judge.

A divorce action in which the issues relating to the trial court’s decree as to custody and divorce are not in issue. The appellant wife who received a divorce, custody of three minor children, $600 per month child support, $500 per month alimony, and substantial attorney fees, attacks only the failure of the court to award alimony in gross.

She áttacks the trial court’s order on the sole ground that the evidence showed the husband’s net worth to be approximately $90,000. Her evidence demonstrated a need for $1,100 a month for support of herself and the children, and she requested and received an allowance of that amount. She also testified to prospective expenditures on the jointly owned family home, future expense of orthodontic services for one of the children and a negligible amount of unpaid bills. No specific request, other than the assertion of those prospective expenses, supports her claim that the trial court abused its discretion in the allowances made. The parties have both cited controlling authority that the allowances of the trial court for alimony are discretionary. Landreth v. Landreth, 454 S.W.2d 495 (Mo.1970). There is nothing in this record that will support a finding of an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Appellant moved for allowance of attorney fees and costs on appeal in the trial court. The trial court ordered payment of $500 costs of appeal, but stated he was “not ruling at this time in regard to attorney fee for plaintiff.” The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, but the cause is remanded for entry of an order determining the issue of attorneys’ fees to be allowed plaintiff for this appeal.

All concur.
Return to:

First Court of Appeals

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002

Case Number 

01-21-00449-CR

Joseph AnthonyAnderson, III § COURT OF APPEALS

§ 1ST DISTRICT

The State of Texas § HOUSTON, TEXAS

Pro se Motion for Access to Appellate Record

To the Honorable Justices of Said Court:

Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in the above styled and numbered 

cause pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Appellant now moves this Court to provide him with a copy of the appellate 

record including the clerk’s record and the court reporter’s record for use in preparing his 

pro se response to counsel’s brief.

Appellant requests an extension of time of 30 days from the granting of this 

motion to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.

Respectfully submitted,

Pro se Appellant

_____________ Unit, TDCJ # __________

____________, Texas _______

Certificate of Service

This is to certify that on (Date), a true and correct copy 

of the above and foregoing document was served by mail on:

Chambers County District Attorney’s Office, 

______________________

Pro se Appellant

FILE COPY
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53958-53959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21924]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Meeting of the Board of Advisors to the Presidents of the Naval 
Postgraduate School and the Naval War College

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 53959]]

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the 
following meeting of the Board of Advisors (BOA) to the Presidents of 
the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and the Naval War College (NWC) 
will be held. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2010, from 8 
a.m. to 4 p.m. and on Wednesday, October 20, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 4 
p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Office of Naval Research, 
875 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jaye Panza, Naval Postgraduate 
School, Monterey, CA 93943-5001, telephone number 831-656-2514.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is to elicit the 
advice of the Board on the Naval Service's Postgraduate Education 
Program and the collaborative exchange and partnership between NPS and 
the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). The Board examines the 
effectiveness with which the NPS and the NWC are accomplishing its 
mission. To this end, the Board will inquire into the curricula; 
instruction; physical equipment; administration; state of morale of the 
student body, faculty, and staff; fiscal affairs; and any other matters 
relating to the operations of the NPS and the NWC as the Board 
considers pertinent. Individuals without a DoD Government Common Access 
Card will require an escort at the meeting location. For access, 
information, or to send written comments regarding the NPS BOA, contact 
Ms. Jaye Panza, Naval Postgraduate School, 1 University Circle, 
Monterey, CA 93943-5001 or by fax 831-656-3145 by October 8, 2010.

    Dated: August 27, 2010.
D.J. Werner,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal 
Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-21924 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Exhibit 32.1

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, the undersigned officer of PFGI Capital Corporation
(PFGI Capital) hereby certifies, to the best of such officers knowledge, that PFGI Capitals Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PFGI Capital.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Randall C. King                    
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Randall C. King                        
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | President (Principal Executive Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41234 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE MANUEL CAMPOS-SADRIVA, true nameJose Manuel Campos-Campos Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-1044-1
Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Manuel Campos-Sadriva (Campos) pleaded guilty to one count of being found unlawfully present in the United States subsequent to a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced him to 30 months of imprisonment, within the guidelines range. Campos objected in the district court to the sentence imposed. Campos now appeals, challenging only the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 7, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-41234

2 In applying the Sentencing Guidelines in this case, the district court enhanced Campos’s offense level by 12 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) based on Campos’s prior drug-trafficking conviction. Campos does not challenge the district court’s application of the Guidelines. Instead, he contends that his sentence was unreasonable in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in G all v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). He maintains that our prior jurisprudence impermissibly constrained the district court’s sentencing discretion in a manner incompatible with Gall and K imbrough

. We have recently rejected this same argument. U nited States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2008)(per curiam); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 557 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed (July 2, 2008)(No. 08-5226). Campos has not overcome the rebuttable presumption that his withinguidelines sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). We thus conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed Campos’s 30-month sentence. See Gall , 128 S. Ct. at 594. AFFIRMED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MIROSLAW M. RZEPKA.

July 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6444

MARK A. WHITE
,
Petitioner

- Appellant
,

v.

WARDEN ENTZEL
, Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. Gina M. Groh
, Chief District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv

- 00092

- GMG )

Submitted : June 18, 2020 Decided : June 23, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Mark A. White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Mark A. White, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on White ’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2018) petition in which he sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the
savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). Pursuant to § 2255(e) , a prisoner may challenge

his conviction and sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a

§ 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect.

United States v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added)

. [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appe al and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of cons titutional law.

In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333

- 34 (4th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added)

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although
we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Whit e v.

Entzel , No. 3:18

- cv

- 00092

- GMG (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 24, 2020). We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**







I,
      Jay O.
      Wright, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-Q of MobilePro Corp. for the quarter ended September 30,
      2007
      (the “Form 10-Q”), that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MobilePro Corp.
      for the periods covered by the Form 10-Q.







Dated:
                November 9, 2007
            By:
                /s/ Jay O. WrightJay
                O. Wright, Chief Executive Officer







I,
      Donald L. Paliwoda, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MobilePro Corp. for the quarter ended September
      30, 2007 (the “Form 10-Q”), that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      MobilePro Corp. for the periods covered by the Form 10-Q.







Dated:
                November 9, 2007
            By:
                /s/ Donald L. PaliwodaDonald
                L. Paliwoda, Principal Financial andAccounting
                Officer





1
Exhibit 10.1

 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO

TALMER BANCORP INC. (FORMERLY FIRST MICHIGAN BANCORP, INC.)

EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 

March 26, 2014

 

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of Talmer Bancorp, Inc. (formerly First Michigan Bancorp., Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), is effective as of March 26, 2014. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.

 

RECITALS:

 

The Plan has been approved and adopted by the board of directors (the “Board”) and shareholders of the Company.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.01 of the Plan, the Board has adopted this Amendment to the Plan as of the date hereof.

 

AMENDMENTS:

 

The Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.              The name of the Plan is hereby amended to be the “Talmer Bancorp, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan.”

 

2.              Section 2.21 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

 

2.21                        Shares mean shares of the Company’s Class A Voting Common Stock, $1.00 par value per share.

 

3.              Section 4.01 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

 

4.01                        Shares Issuable. Shares to be issued under the Plan may be authorized and unissued Shares or issued Shares which have been reacquired by the Company. Except as provided in Section 4.03, the Awards granted to any Participant and to all Participants in the aggregate under the Plan shall be limited so that the sum of Shares that may be issued or issuable pursuant to such Awards and/or represented by such Awards shall not exceed Nine Million Seven Hundred Ninety Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Five (9,794,745) Shares.

 

4.              After the date of this Amendment, all references in the Plan to the “Plan” shall mean the Plan, as amended by this Amendment.

 

5.              The Plan and this Amendment, together, set forth the entire agreement and understanding of the parties to them and supersede all prior agreements, arrangements and communications, whether oral or written, with respect to the subject matter. Except as expressly modified by the

 











 

terms and conditions of this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.  In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this Amendment and the provisions of the Plan, the provisions of this Amendment shall govern and control.

 

2
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1570 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect employer rights. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 7, 2007 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect 

employer rights. 

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 ‘‘Truth in Employment 

5 Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that: 

8 (1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in labor9 management relationships is essential to a produc10 tive workplace and a healthy economy. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 1570 IS 

1 (2) The tactic of using professional union orga2 nizers and agents to infiltrate a targeted employer’s 

3 workplace, a practice commonly referred to as ‘‘salt4 ing’’, has evolved into an aggressive form of harass5 ment not contemplated when the National Labor Re6 lations Act was enacted and threatens the balance of 

7 rights which is fundamental to our system of collec8 tive bargaining. 

9 (3) Increasingly, union organizers are seeking 

10 employment with nonunion employers not because of 

11 a desire to work for such employers but primarily to 

12 organize the employees of such employers or to in13 flict economic harm specifically designed to put non14 union competitors out of business, or to do both. 

15 (4) While no employer may discriminate against 

16 employees based upon the views of employees con17 cerning collective bargaining, an employer should 

18 have the right to expect job applicants to be pri19 marily interested in utilizing the skills of the appli20 cants to further the goals of the business of the em21 ployer. 

22 SEC. 3. PURPOSES. 

23 The purposes of this Act are— 

24 (1) to preserve the balance of rights between 

25 employers, employees, and labor organizations which 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 1570 IS 

1 is fundamental to our system of collective bar2 gaining; 

3 (2) to preserve the rights of workers to orga4 nize, or otherwise engage in concerted activities pro5 tected under the National Labor Relations Act; and 

6 (3) to alleviate pressure on employers to hire 

7 individuals who seek or gain employment in order to 

8 disrupt the workplace of the employer or otherwise 

9 inflict economic harm designed to put the employer 

10 out of business. 

11 SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS. 

12 Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

13 U.S.C. 158(a)) is amended by adding after and below 

14 paragraph (5) the following: 

15 ‘‘Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requir16 ing an employer to employ any person who seeks or has 

17 sought employment with the employer in furtherance of 

18 other employment or agency status.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### STATE v. McEACHIN

No. 138P01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 60

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 5 April 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 2001. Conditional petition by the Attorney General for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 dismissed as moot 5 April 2001.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21918]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / 
Notices

[[Page 53947]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Prince of Wales Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Thorne Bay, Alaska, September 24, 2010. The purpose of this meeting is 
to discuss potential projects under the Secure Rural Schools and 
Community Self-Determination Act of 2008.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 24, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 4 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Thorne Bay Ranger District, 
1312 Federal Way, Thorne Bay, Alaska. Send written comments to Prince 
of Wales Resource Advisory Committee, c/o District Ranger, USDA Forest 
Service, PO Box 500, Craig, AK 99921, or electronically to Rebecca 
Sakraida, RAC Coordinator at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd8f8e9c968f9c94999cbd9b8ed39b9899d3888e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94e6e7f5ffe6f5fdf0f5d4f2e7baf2f1f0bae1e7">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Sakraida, RAC Coordinator, 
Craig Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, (907) 826-1601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will 
have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

Gregory M. Killinger,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 2010-21918 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>