alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Arrangement with Anthony E. Giraudo



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Arrangement with Anthony E. Giraudo 
  

As an inducement for Mr. Giraudo to join Semtech Corporation as Chief Operating Officer, the Company made a one-time contribution in the amount of $30,000 to his
account in the Semtech Executive Compensation Plan, which is a deferred compensation plan. This contribution will vest in four equal annual installments beginning in May 2005, or earlier upon death or disability.
No. D-681.

#### In re Disbarment of Feldman.

It is ordered that Jeffrey Stuart Feldman, of Livingston, N. J., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 337

Providing for the hour of meeting of the House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1998

Mr. ARMEY submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for the hour of meeting of the House.

1 Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, before Mon2 day, May 18, 1998, the hour of daily meeting of the House

3 shall be 2:00 p.m. on Mondays; 11:00 a.m. on Tuesdays;

4 and 10:00 a.m. on all other days of the week; and from

5 Monday, May 18, 1998, until the end of the second ses6 sion, the hour of daily meeting of the House shall be noon

7 on Mondays; 10:00 a.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and

8 Thursdays; and 9:00 a.m. on all other days of the week.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 217 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 24, 1997.
Whereas the United States and the Republic of Austria have enjoyed close and 
        friendly relations since the inception of the Republic of Austria;
Whereas 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan which was 
        critically important to the reconstruction of the Republic of Austria 
        and to the establishment of friendly ties between the Republic of 
        Austria and the United States;
Whereas on September 26, 1945, a conference of representatives of the nine 
        Federal states of the Republic of Austria was held in Vienna that laid 
        the foundation for the provisional Austrian Government and the early 
        elections in November 1945; and
Whereas a number of States have already proclaimed September 26, 1997, as 
        ``Austrian-American Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) declares that the warm and cordial relations between the people 
        of the United States and the Republic of Austria should grow stronger; 
        and
            (2) acknowledges the important contributions to the United States by 
        Americans of Austrian heritage.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 1 1

- 00 368

- CV

IN RE HARDING

- CONLEY

- DRAWERT

- TINCH INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. a/k/a

HCDT INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., PAUL POETTGEN, MARYANNA

CHRISTENSEN AND JOYCE TINCH, AS HEIR TO ACE TINCH, DECEASED

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 1, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On May 26, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has considered

relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011

- PC

- 1086 , styled In re Estate of Allen C. Tinch Jr., Deceased

, pending in the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Tom Rickhoff p residing.
#### Bernard Yankowitz, Respondent, *v.*Standard Accident Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 30, 1925.

Insurance — robbery insurance — policy covered assured and permanent members of household over eighteen years of age — recovery cannot be had for robbery of wife who was under eighteen.

A recovery cannot be had by the assured on a robbery insurance policy for a loss suffered when Ms wife, less than eighteen years of age, was robbed, since, wMle the policy covers the assured and all the permanent members of Ms family, it specifically excepts persons under the age of eighteen years.

Levy, J., dissents.

*314Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered after a trial by the court without a jury.

*Benjamin C. Loder,*for the appellant.

*Sobel & Brand [Samuel Sobel*of counsel], for the respondent.

Churchill, J.

Plaintiff sued under a burglary insurance policy which contained a so-called “holdup” clause reading as follows:

> “ In Consideration of an additional premium of Six and 00/100 ($6.00), and subject to the terms and conditions of this policy, the Company hereby agrees to indemnify the Assured, or any permanent member of the Assured’s household who does not pay board or rent, or a relative of the Assured permanently residing with him (domestic servants or other employes excepted), provided such person is over the age of eighteen years, for all loss by robbery of property from such person and belonging to him and consisting of money, securities, jewelry, watches, clothing and articles of personal adornment.”

Plaintiff’s wife was “ held up ” and robbed and plaintiff has recovered judgment for the amount of the loss. The wife was under the age of eighteen years at the time of the robbery. Plaintiff would so construe the policy as to restrict the application of the clause relating to age to relatives and persons permanently residing with the insured. But the language is plain and unambiguous and leaves no room for construction. The words “ such person ” are used twice. In the second case it is clear beyond the possibility of argument that they refer to all persons who may be robbed. There is no reason to give them a different meaning when first employed.

The judgment should be reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Bijur, J., concurs; Levy, J., dissents.
CL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0120

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

JACOB JON IDLAND,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including October 13, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 5 2023

09/05/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0120
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67413-67414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26890]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-119-2014]


Approval of Subzone Status; Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. ``C''; 
Hawesville, Kentucky

    On September 10, 2014, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade 
Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Louisville & 
Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, requesting 
subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 29, on 
behalf of Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. ``C'', in Hawesville, Kentucky.
    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and 
Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public 
comment (79 FR 56058, 9-18-2014). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the 
application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. 
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive 
Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 
29M is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 29's 2,000-acre 
activation limit.


[[Page 67414]]


    Dated: November 7, 2014.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26890 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

        STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            UNDER 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350




         We, Charles E. Ramey, the chief executive officer US Dataworks, Inc.
(the "Company"), and John S. Reiland, the chief financial officer of the
Company, certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of
the United States Code that, to the best of our knowledge,

         (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB, for the period
ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



Dated: November 14, 2003

                                                     /S/ CHARLES E. RAMEY
                                                     --------------------
                                                     Charles E. Ramey
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


                                                     /S/ JOHN S. REILAND
                                                     -------------------
                                                     John S. Reiland
                                                     Chief Financial Officer




A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO US DATAWORKS, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY US DATAWORKS, INC. AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned officer of WII Components, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2009 to which this certification is beingfurnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”), and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32) ”) promulgated under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended (the “SecuritiesAct”), and the ExchangeAct.  In accordance with clause (ii) ofItem 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, orotherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Actor the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specificallyincorporates it by reference.

 
| Date: March 31, 2010 |                                         |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                      | /s/ John Fitzpatrick                         |
|                      | Name: John Fitzpatrick                       |
|                      | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
#### VMWARE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONNECTIX CORPORATION and Microsoft Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-1546.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Nov. 9, 2004.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of VMware, Inc.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted. Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### Lilyana LIM, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-1767.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 6, 2004.

Decided: Jan. 4, 2005.

*896Anthony M. Briggs, Jr., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan F. Potter, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Lilyana Lim, a native and citizen of Indonesia and a Chinese-Christian, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.

In her petition for review, Lim challenges the immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Lim fails to show the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief she seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Lim’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). Because Lim fails to show she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.*

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*

*

 Lim does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00360-CR

ALBERTO GUTIERREZ

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of DeWitt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22-10-13,939

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 25, 2024
9284.

#### Vaughan *et al. v.*Farmers and Merchants Bank *et al.*

Decided May 17, 1918.

Complaint; from Forsyth superior court—Judge Morris. September 17, 1917.

Usury was included in the note sued on, which contained a waiver of homestead, and this was pleaded, with other defenses, by accommodation indorsers, who alleged that at the time the note was given they were ignorant of the usury, and therefore they were not liable thereon. The note was given to the plaintiff bank on December 12, 1911, for a loan; the sum received by the borrower was $1,750, and the principal sum named in the note was $1,960, and was payable December 12, 1912, with interest from maturity. It was testified that the indorsers were not informed as to the sum received from the bank, or as to the rate of interest charged in this transaction, and did not know that there was usury in the note. There was evidence, however, that it was usual for the bank to charge more than the lawful rate of interest on loans, and that this' *402had been done by it in previous transactions with these indorsers. It appeared also that the loan was obtained to pay money due to one of the indorsers, and that the bank’s check for the $1,750 was given to him. The verdict was against the defendants. It was contended in the brief of counsel for the plaintiffs in error that the burden'was on the plaintiff to show that the indorsers knew of the usury, and the evidence was not sufficient to show such knowledge; and on this point they cited: *Bank of Omega*v. *Ford,*20 *Oa. App.*496; *Prather*v.- *Smith,*101 *Qa.*283; *Denton*v. *Butler,*99 *Qa.*264. On the part of the bank it was contended that, it appearing thgt the indorsers knew of the custom of the bank to charge usury, they had reasonable ground to suspect usury in this transaction, and therefore the jury were authorized to find that they were not ignorant of it. .In support of this contention counsel cited: J *ones*v. *'Pope,*7 *Qa. App.*539; *Gay*v. *Qay,*8 *Qa. App.*804; *Sugart*v. *Mays,*554 (3). A former decision in this case is reported in 146 *Qa.*51.

*401Luke, J.

The issues of, fact raised by the defendants’ plea, under appropriate instructions from the trial judge, were determined by the jury adversely, to the defendants. The evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. For none of the reasons assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*

*402
      *J. P. Brooke, Howell Brooke, II. L. Patterson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Qeorge'F. Gober, O. L. Harris, W. I. Heyward,*contra.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00514-CR

Juan Santos HUERTA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CR3450

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 11, 2024

DISMISSED

On July 18, 2024, appellant Juan Santos Huerta filed a pro se notice of appeal seeking to appeal 

his conviction for serious bodily injury to an elderly person. After Huerta filed his notice of appeal, 

the trial court clerk filed a copy of the clerk’s record showing Huerta entered into a written plea bargain 

agreement with the State pursuant to which he pled nolo contendere. The clerk’s record further shows 

the trial court imposed its sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certification stating 

this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 
04-24-00514-CR

- 2 -

“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised 

by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to 

appeal, or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” Id. We must dismiss 

an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made 

part of the record.” Id. R. 25.2(d). 

Here, the clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the trial court does not 

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by Huerta. It also does not 

include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate the trial court gave 

Huerta permission to appeal. Thus, the trial court’s certification appears to accurately reflect this 

is a plea-bargain case, and Huerta does not have a right to appeal. See id. R. 25.2; Dears v. State, 

154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals should review clerk’s record to 

determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). 

On August 29, 2024, we ordered Huerta to file a response by September 30, 2024

establishing an amended certification showing he has the right to appeal has been made part of the 

appellate record. We cautioned Huerta failure to satisfactorily respond to this order within the 

time provided would result in the dismissal of this appeal. On August 30, 2024, Huerta’s counsel 

filed a response confirming this is a plea-bargain case, and Huerta does not have a right to appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish
#### Nathan Tilden THOMAS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 04-6740.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 19, 2004.

Decided Dec. 28, 2004.

*292Nathan Tilden Thomas, Appellant pro se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, ‘Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Nathan Tilden Thomas, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 109

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that American families

deserve tax relief.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 9, 1997

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. PAUL, Mr. HERGER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHADEGG, and Mr.

QUINN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

American families deserve tax relief.

Whereas American families currently pay too much of their

hard-earned money in taxes;

Whereas every American will work for at least 120 days in

1997 to pay his or her share of taxes;

Whereas Americans should be allowed to keep more of their

money to invest in their childrens’ futures, purchase

homes, or start businesses; and

Whereas the American family will be strengthened by providing tax relief: Now, therefore, be it
2

•HRES 109 IH

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges

2 that the Congress and the President work together to

3 enact permanent tax relief for our Nation’s families.

Æ