alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jason DAUZART.

No. 2010-KK-2867.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 3, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. F, No. 491-428; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1749.

Writ granted. We find the trial court abused its discretion in finding no probable cause to arrest the accused for possession of the firearm as a convicted felon. A reasonable officer could conclude the accused had dominion and control over the *864firearm that was in plain view and within his reach inside the vehicle. *See Maryland v. Pringle,*540 U.S. 366, 371-372, 124 S.Ct. 795, 800-801, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (Where cocaine was discovered behind the' back-seat armrest and accessible to all three occupants, probable cause existed to arrest the front-seat passenger.) Further, the ruling of the trial court granting the motions to suppress is vacated. The admissibility of evidence is dependent upon the circumstances under which it was obtained, not upon whether there was probable cause to believe the accused had committed a crime. *See State v. Bradford,*98-1428, p. 4 (La. Ct.App. 4 Cir. 12/9/98), 729 So.2d 1049, 1051. Case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

JOHNSON and WEIMER, JJ., would deny the application.
Document



Exhibit 4.5




November 23, 2021 




Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Re:    The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company – Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


    The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, an Ohio corporation (“Scotts Miracle-Gro”), is today filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021 (the “Form 10-K”).


    Neither Scotts Miracle-Gro nor any of its consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt, other than those filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Form 10-K, under which the total amount of long-term debt authorized exceeds ten percent (10%) of the total assets of Scotts Miracle-Gro and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.  In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, Scotts Miracle-Gro hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, a copy of each such instrument or agreement defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of Scotts Miracle-Gro or the rights of holders of long-term debt of one of Scotts Miracle-Gro’s consolidated subsidiaries, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Form 10-K.


Very truly yours,


THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY


/s/ CORY J. MILLER


Cory J. Miller
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
14111 Scottslawn Road Marysville, OH 43041 937-644-0011     
www.scotts.com
**Exhibit 32.1**
 
 HERITAGE OAKS BANCORP
  Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB
 for the Quarter ended September 30, 2004
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, that to my knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 ****Date: October 19, 2004
By:
/s/ Lawrence P. WardLawrence P. WardPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Heritage Oaks Bancorp, and will be retained by Heritage Oaks Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99.2

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


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


<S>   <C>                   <C>  <C>
The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer
of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:


  (i)  the enclosed Annual Report of NSTAR on Form 10-K for the
       year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the
       requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
       Exchange Act of 1934; and


  (ii) the information contained in such Report fairly presents,
       in all material respects, the financial condition and
       results of operations of NSTAR.


Dated:  March 27, 2003         By:   /s/ JAMES J. JUDGE
                                     James J. Judge
                                     Senior Vice President, Treasurer
                                       and Chief Financial Officer
</TABLE>
Motion Denied; Order filed May 19 , 2016.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00658

- CR

____________ LAURA LEA KOLB, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 405th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14CR3253



### ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Mark W. Stevens . Appellant ’ s brief was originally due February 15, 2016

. We have granted a total of 90 days ’
extension to file appellant ’ s brief until May 11, 2016. When we granted the last extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional
circumstances. No brief was filed. On May 12, 2016 , counsel filed a furth er requestfor extension of time to file appellant ’ s brief. Counsel did not allege any exceptional

circumstances in the request.
We deny the request for extension and issue the following order.

W e order Mark W. Stevens to file a brief with the clerk of th is c ourt on or before June 10, 2016 . If counsel does not timely file appellant’s brief as ordered, the

c ourt will issue an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the brief and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Brown.
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE LICENSE OF ROBERT A. FOGARI, M.D. TO PRACTICE MEDICINE AND SURGERY IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 99.1
 Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.
 9601 AMBERGLEN BLVD., SUITE 117
    
    306 WEST SEVENTH STREET, SUITE 302
    
    1000 LOUISIANA STREET, SUITE 625AUSTIN, TEXAS 78729-1106
    
    FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-4987
    
    HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5008512-249-7000
    
    817-336-2461
    
    713-651-9944FAX 512-233-2618
    
    FAX 817-877-3728
www.cgaus.com
    
    FAX 713-651-9980
  
 Re:
    
    Evaluation SummaryBrigham Oil & Gas, L. P. Interests
Proved Reserves
As of December 31, 2009Pursuant to the Guidelines of theSecurities and Exchange Commission forReporting Corporate Reserves andFuture Net Revenue
  Securities and Exchange Commission




---



##### 



ProvedTotal
    
    
    Developed
    
    
    UndevelopedNet ReservesOil  bbl
    
    
    
    
    
    
    16,623,443
    
    
    
    5,341,955
    
    
    
    11,281,490Gas  Mcf
    
    
    
    
    
    
    66,397,141
    
    
    
    29,178,107
    
    
    
    37,219,035Net BOE Production
    
    
    BOE
    
    
    
    27,689,639
    
    
    
    10,204,973
    
    
    
    17,484,660Investments

    
    
    $
    

    
    
    266,733,438
    
    
    
    7,971,196
    
    
    
    258,762,21910% Discounted Future Net

    
    
    $
    

    


    
    254,140,000Cash Flow(Present Worth)
      Securities and Exchange Commission




---



##### 



Yours very truly,Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-693(STAMP)
    -s- W. Todd Brooker, P. E.W. Todd Brooker, P. E.Vice President




---



##### 



APPENDIX
 Reserve Definitions and Classifications
  Proved oil and gas reserves
      Developed oil and gas reserves
   Undeveloped oil and gas reserves




---



##### 



Probable reserves
     Possible reserves
       permitted, but not required
 Reserves
 Note to paragraph (26)




---



##### 



APPENDIX
 Methods Employed in the Estimation of Reserves
 production
performance material balance volumetric analogy
 may
  Production performance
 Material balance
 Volumetric
 Analogy
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,863
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          29,957
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            29,597
<LOANS>                                        643,339
<ALLOWANCE>                                      8,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 858,690
<DEPOSITS>                                     575,246
<SHORT-TERM>                                   163,694
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,082
<LONG-TERM>                                     35,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 858,690
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 51,907
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,713
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                63,620
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              25,834
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,857
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,763
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      850
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  25
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 23,976
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,399
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,399
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,436
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.93
<LOANS-NON>                                     15,336
<LOANS-PAST>                                     7,103
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 9,499
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,259
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      733
<RECOVERIES>                                       457
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                8,652
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             8,652
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 34.6



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services,
Inc. (the Company), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v),
1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with
the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.



|                
|----------------
|February 4, 2016
|                
|LOGO            



LOGO

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201 T: (214) 999-1400, F:
(214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 4 , 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 11

- 00 571

- CV

____________

VERONICA SPENCER DANIELS , Appellant

V.

ROBERT HAMMOND , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11

- CCV

- 045280



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from a June 20, 2011, order on a writ of
possession issued June 27, 2011

. To date, our records show that appellant has neither established indigence nor paid the $175.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5
(requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing
requirements for establishing indigence); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil
Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on2

Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007) (listing fees in
court of appeals); Tex. Gov’t Code ' 51.20 7 (same).

On September 8

, 2011 , this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate fi ling fee on

or before September 23

, 2011 , or the appeal would be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3 (c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with

a court order ). Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee or responded to this court’s

order

. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally

.
#### Camille LANDRY, Individually, and on Behalf of her Minor Child, Tai Landry v. PSA OF LAFAYETTE, LLC.

No. 2011-CC-0131.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 2011.

In re Pediatric Services of America, Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-5188; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-00041.

Stay denied. Writ denied.
585 A.2d 400

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. AARON BETHEA.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 243 *N.J.Super.*280, 579 A.2d 341)
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2155

_____________________________

STEVEN MERCER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Linda F. McCallum, Judge.

March 15, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and MAKAR and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Steven Mercer, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Jun Li TAM, a.k.a. Jun Li Tan; Joseph Junior Tam; Wing Ng Tam; You Xian Tam; Judie Tam; Stanley Tam, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-15775.

D.C. No. CV-98-02835-MHP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 9, 2001.1

Decided Jan. 11, 2001.

Before GOODWIN, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Jun Li Tam and members of his family appeal from the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

The district court correctly concluded that it had jurisdiction of Tam’s petition and that the repeal of § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by § 304(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) applies to Tam because his removal proceedings were initiated after April 1, 1997. *Richards-Diaz v. Fasano,*233 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.2000). However, because Tam has alleged that he relied on the availability of § 212(c) discretionary relief when he decided to plead guilty, we remand for an evidentiary hearing on that claim. *Id.*at 1165. If Tam makes a “ ‘specific factual showing that a plea was entered in reliance on the availability of discretionary waiver under § 212(c),’ ” he “may be able to establish that [IIRIRA § 304(b)] has an impermissible retroactive application as to him.’ ” *Id.*(quoting *Ma-gana-Pizano v. INS,*200 F.3d 603, 613 (9th Cir.1999)). In examining Tam’s claim, the court should employ its “sound instinct in applying the familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations.” *Magana-Pizano,*200 F.3d at 613 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40156

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUTHER JAMES BUSH, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-901-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luther James Bush, Jr., appeals his 44-month prison sentence resulting 

from his guilty plea conviction for one count of transportation of an 

undocumented alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(A)(v)(II), 

(a)(1)(B)(ii). The district court enhanced Bush’s sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.1(b)(6) after it determined that Bush intentionally or recklessly created 

a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to the 16 aliens he was 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40156 Document: 00513737108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2016
No. 16-40156

2

transporting. Bush contends that the facts of his offense do not warrant the 

sentence enhancement.

We review a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and 

review its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Solis-Garcia, 

420 F.3d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Cuyler, 298 F.3d 387, 389 

(5th Cir. 2002). The record reflects that Bush was transporting 16 persons in 

the sleeper compartment of the tractor-trailer, that the sleeper compartment 

was not designed to accommodate 16 persons, and that it did not have any 

safety restraints. As the commentary to § 2L1.1 gives “carrying substantially 

more passengers than the rated capacity of a motor vehicle” and “harboring 

persons in a crowded, dangerous, or inhumane condition” as examples of 

reckless conduct that would support a sentence enhancement under that 

Guideline, we perceive no error in Bush’s sentence. See § 2L1.1, comment. 

(n.5).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-40156 Document: 00513737108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 863 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 863

  To facilitate the addition of park administration at the Coltsville 
           National Historical Park, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2017

  Mr. Larson of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To facilitate the addition of park administration at the Coltsville 
           National Historical Park, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO COLTSVILLE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK DONATION 
              SITE.

    Section 3032(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 113-291 (16 U.S.C. 410qqq) is 
amended by striking ``East Armory'' and inserting ``Colt Armory 
Complex''.
                                 <all>
```