alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marcus NORMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 98-4305.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2001.

Before NELSON, SILER and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Marcus Norman, appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for the failure of counsel to file a notice of appeal when requested by the petitioner. For reasons stated herein, we reverse and remand.

In 1995, Norman pleaded guilty to a two-count indictment, charging him with *301possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and with the use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He received a sentence of 195 months. On appeal, the § 924(c) conviction was reversed because Norman did not actively use or carry a firearm in relation to the drug offense, as required under *Bailey v. United States,*516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). *See United States v. Norman,*114 F.3d 1190, 1997 WL 295345 (6th Cir.l997)(table).

On remand, the district court resen-tenced Norman to 168 months of incarceration, which included a two-point increase for possession of a firearm under USSG § 2Dl.l(b)(l). Norman requested his counsel to file a notice of appeal. In particular, he wanted to challenge the two-point firearm enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(l), but counsel felt there was no appealable issue and refused to do so.

Although the district court denied relief, finding that an attorney is not required to file an appeal which would be groundless, it did not have the benefit of two cases which were decided subsequent to its decision. *See Roe v. Flores-Ortega,*528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000); *Ludwig v. United States,*162 F.3d 456, 459 (6th Cir.1998). Because of those subsequent cases, the United States has conceded error.

Therefore, this matter will be reversed and remanded in order for counsel to file a notice of appeal so that Norman may pursue the merits of his claim on appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

Respondent

v.

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, 

LODGE NO. 5,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 186 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 24


                            SOUTH JERSEY GAS COMPANY
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


     Each of the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer or director, or
both, as the case may be, of South Jersey Gas Company, a New Jersey
corporation, does hereby appoint Charles Biscieglia, David A. Kindlick and
George L. Baulig, and each of them, severally, as his or her true and lawful
attorneys or attorney to execute in his or her name, place and stead, in his or
her capacity as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of said
corporation, its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 on
Form 10-K, pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
any and all amendments thereto and instruments necessary or incidental in
connection therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange
Commission; and does hereby provide that each of said attorneys shall have
power to act hereunder with or without the other said attorneys, and shall have
full power of substitution and resubstitution and that each of said attorneys
shall have full power and authority to do and perform in the name and on behalf
of the undersigned in any and all capacities every act whatsoever required to
be done in the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes as he or she
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and approving the acts of said
attorneys and each of them.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument, this
21st day of March 2001.





                                  /s/ Charles Biscieglia
                                  Charles Biscieglia, President and CEO



                                  /s/ Shirli M. Billings
                                  Shirli M. Billings, Director



                                  /s/ Sheila Hartnett-Devlin
                                  Sheila Hartnett-Devlin, Director



                                  /s/ Clarence D. McCormick
                                  Clarence D.  McCormick, Director





                                                                    Exhibit 24



Power of Attorney -- 10-K                                          Page 2 of 2




                                  /s/ Frederick R. Raring
                                  Frederick R. Raring, Director



                                  /s/ George L. Baulig
                                  George L. Baulig, Senior Vice President &
                                  Corporate Secretary



                                  /s/ David A. Kindlick
                                  David A. Kindlick, Senior Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24650]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 
20549-0213.


Extension:
    Regulation C; OMB Control No. 3235-0074; SEC File No. 270-68.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget the request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Regulation C (17 CFR 230.400 through 230.498) provides standard 
instructions to guide persons when filing registration statements under 
the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). The information 
collected is intended to ensure the adequacy of information available 
to investors in the registration of securities. The information 
provided is mandatory. Regulation C is assigned one burden hour for 
administrative convenience because it does not directly impose 
information collection requirements.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed 
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503; or send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92c1faf3f5e7f4e6f3cdd3fafff7f6d2fdfff0bcf7fde2bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c4f747d7b697a687d435d747179785c73717e3279736c327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>; and (ii) Jeffrey Heslop, Director/CIO, Securities 
and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, 
Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80d0d2c1dfcde1e9ece2eff8c0f3e5e3aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b2b293a24361a12171914033b081e18551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: September 27, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24650 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Alfreda Ruth TAYLOR, et al. v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al.

No. 2011-CC-0052.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Claims Management, Inc.; Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC; —Defendant(s); *339Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. C-2009-0220; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01255.

Denied.
<PAGE>


OWOSSO CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               Three Months Ended
                                                          ----------------------------
                                                          January 30,      January 31,
                                                              2000            1999
<S>                                                       <C>              <C>
BASIC:

Net loss available for common stockholders                $ (550,000)      $ (403,000)
                                                          ==========       ==========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding       5,830,000        5,816,000
                                                          ==========       ==========

Basic loss per common share                               $    (0.09)      $    (0.07)
                                                          ==========       ==========


DILUTED:

Net loss available for common stockholders                $ (550,000)      $ (403,000)
                                                          ==========       ==========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding       5,830,000        5,816,000

Dilutive effect of stock options                              --               --
                                                          ----------       ----------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding              5,830,000        5,816,000
                                                          ==========       ==========

Diluted loss per common share                             $    (0.09)      $    (0.07)
                                                          ==========       ==========
</TABLE>
#### Tucker *v.*State.

Opinion delivered January 18, 1926.

Criminal law—dismissal of charge for delay in prosecution.— One accused of murder is entitled to a dismissal of the charge where more than three terms of the court have passed without a trial, and the court had time to try the case at each term, and the defendant, being present, did not apply for or consent to the delay.

Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; *E. D. Robertson,*Judge;

reversed.

*Sheffield & Coates,*for appellant.

*H. W. Applegate,*Attorney General, and *John L. Carter,*Assistant, for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

This is an appeal from the final judgment of the circuit court of Phillips County denying the motion of appellant to dismiss the charge of murder in the first degree pending against him in the said court for the reason that more thlan three terms of court had passed without giving him a trial. The prosecuting attorney admitted the truth of the facts set out in the motion and, based upon this admission, the trial court made the following finding of facts:

> “The court finds that the indictment was returned and filed on the 1st day of November, 1923, lat the regular term of the 1923 Phillips County Circuit Court, and that the defendant was arrested on that date and admitted to bail in the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). The court further finds that at that term the defendant filed a motion for a trial at that term of the court, and that the motion was overruled by the court.

> “The court further finds that the court had time to try the defendant at the fall term of court,. 1923, at the spring term of court, 1924, at the fall term of court, 1924, and at the spring term of court, 1925; that the court was duly and regularly held at each of the said terms in the city of Helena, Arkansas, Phillips County; that the defendant was present at each of the said terms, but that the State failed and declined to set the case down *144for trial; that the delay of the trial did not happen on the application or by the consent of the defendant. ’ ’

The Attorney G-enerlal has confessed reversible error on the part of the trial court in refusing to discharge appellant. The case is ruled by *Ware*v. *State,*159 Ark. 540.

The judgment of the trial court overruling appellant’s application for discharge is therefore reversed, and an order will be entered here dismissing the case and discharging appellant.
#### Morrison *v.*Berry.

Opinion delivered January 18, 1926.

Replevin—property in hands- of officer.—If property seized by an officer belongs to a defendant in the execution or attachment, it is *in custodia legis,*and not the subject of replevin; but if it belongs to a stranger to the process when seized, it is not then *in custodia legis,*and may be replevied by the owner.

Appeal from 'Searcy Circuit Court; *J. M. Shinn,*Judge;

affirmed.

*W. F. Reeves,*for appellant.

Humphreys, J.

The question presented by this appeal is whether replevin was the proper remedy in the case. The undisputed facts are that Lloyd Massey obtained a judgment in a magistrate’s court against Mrs. Lydia Berry for $13 upon which an execution was duly issued, directed to the constable of the township, who is the appellant herein. Appellant, in an official capacity, levied the execution on fifty-two bushels of corn in the barn on the farm of Mirs. Berry. The corn was the property of appellees, Ellison and Oscar Berry, and, when it it was levied upon, they sued out a writ of replevin, which was served by delivering a copy thereof to said constable. The constable thereafter proceeded to sell the corn under the execution, and made return thereon to the court out of which the execution issued. Upon the trial of the replevin suit, appellees recovered the value of the corn from appellant, both before the justice o.f the peace and on appeal to the circuit court.

It is sought to reverse the judgment of the circuit court upon the ground that the property was *in custodia legis,*'and not the subject of replevin, when seized by the constable under the execution.. In support of this position 'learned counsel for appellant has cited *Goodrich*v. *Fritz,*4 Ark. *525; Hagan*v. *Duell and Vaughan,*24 Ark. 216; *Crowell*v. *Barham,*57 Ark. 195; *Emerson*v. *Hopper,*94 Ark. 384; and *Cherry*v. *Dillard,*131 Ark. 245. These cases sustained the principle that property *in custodia legis*cannot be replevied from the officer seizing *148it while in Ms possession, but they do not establish the principle that property belonging to a stranger to the process under whch the property was seized may be regarded as *in custodia legis.*If property seized by an officer belongs to a defendant in the execution of attachment, it is *in custodia legis*and not the subject of replevin ; but if it belongs to a stranger to the process when seized, it is not *in custodia legis*and may be replevied by the owner. *Willis*v. Reinhardt, 52 Ark. 128; Crawford & Moses’ Digest, § 8646.

In the instant case appellees were strangers to the execution against Mrs. Berry under which their corn was seized, and they had a right to replevy it from the officer seizing it.

No error appearing, the judgment is laffirmed.
#### Troy D. MAJOR, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-4237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 10, 2010.

Troy D. Major, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is hereby granted a belated appeal of the judgments and sentences rendered on October 1, 2008, in Escambia County Circuit Court case numbers 2008-CF-000841-A and 2008-CF-001726-A. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the circuit court for treatment as the notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(D). If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, the trial court shall ap*103point counsel to represent petitioner on appeal.

PETITION GRANTED.

WOLF, DAVIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Unassociated Document


    
      	
               
      

            	
              Exhibit
      10.1

            


    

    


    Waiver of Reservation of
Shares Rights

    


    To: IXI Mobile, Inc. (the
"Corporation")

    


    The
undersigned holds certain warrants issued by the Corporation (the "Warrants"), certain
contractual rights to receive warrants for shares of the Corporation ("Additional Warrants") or
certain contractual rights to additional shares of the Corporation ("Additional Shares"). By its
signature below, the undersigned hereby waives the Corporation's obligation to
maintain a number of shares of common stock of the Corporation to be issuable
upon exercise of the Warrants, the Additional Warrants or fulfillment of the
conditions to receive the Additional Shares.

    


    The
undersigned hereby further releases the Corporation and its officers, directors,
employees, managers, agents, investors, partners, affiliates, predecessor and
successor entities, from any and all claims the undersigned may have in
connection with any of the foregoing and agrees not to sue concerning, or in any
manner institute, prosecute or pursue, any claim, complaint, charge, duty,
obligation or cause of action relating to the matters mentioned
above.

    


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Waiver as of the date set
forth below.

    


    


    __________________________________________

    (Signature)

    


    By:  __________________________

    


    Name:
________________________

    


    Title:
_________________________

    


    Date:
____________ _____, 20__
#### Sedrick YOUNGBLOOD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D11-1436.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 13, 2011.

Sedrick Youngblood, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, SALTER and EMAS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Debuisson v. State,*947 So.2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuantto Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Domenic Gatto,certify that:

 

1.  I havereviewed this special financial report pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15d-2of Atlantic Express Transportation Corp.;

 

2.  Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.  Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
|   | /s/ Domenic Gatto               |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |  Domenic Gatto             |
|   | * Chief Executive Officer* |

 

Date: November 16,2005

 

----
ex10_6.htm


    
      

    

    
      Exhibit
10.6

      


      December
11, 2008

      


      FORM OF
WAIVER

      


      


      United
States Department of the Treasury

      1500
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

      Washington,
D.C.  20220

      


      Community
West Bancshares

      445 Pine
Avenue

      Goleta,
California 93117

      


      Ladies
and Gentlemen:

      


      In
consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital
Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States
or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required
to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.

      


      I
acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation,
bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements
(including so-called "golden parachute" agreements) that I have with my employer
or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds
any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital
Purchase Program.

      


      This
waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any
state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation,
including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I
would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation
was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these
regulations on my employment relationship.

      


      


      
        
          	 
      	
                  /s/ Lynda J. Nahra

                	 
      
	 
      	
                  Lynda J. Nahra

                	 
      
	 
      	
                  President
      and Chief Executive Officer

                	 
      


        

      

      
         

        UST Sequence Number:
82

        Exhibit
10.6

         

        1