alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10758 C onfer enc e C al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. J EF FR EY COREI NN S TORY , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 2
- CR- 3
- ALL B ef ore W IE N E R , B E N AV ID E S , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Jef f r ey C or ei nn St or y, fede r alpr i so ner# 28 236- 177, w as s ent enc ed t o 2 10 m on th s of i m p ri son m e n t a ft er p l ea d i n g g u i l ty to p oss ess i on w i th i n ten t t o di st ribu t e cr ack c ocai n e. F ol l ow i n g am en dm en t s t o t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es t h at l ow ered t h e of

fen se l evel s f

or c rack cocai n e of

fen ses, th e d ist ri ctcourt g r a n te dam o t i o n b y S to r yp u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) a n dre d u c e dh is sentence t o 168 m on t h s, at t h e bott om of t h e am en ded gu i del i n es ran ge. Stor y n o w a p p e a ls , c h a lle n g in gt h e lim its o n t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is c r e tio n s e t fo r th in United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10758

2 U . S . S . G . § 1B 1 . 1 0 , an darg u i n g th a t t h e distri ct cou rt ha dthe au th ority to i m pose an even l ow er s en t en ce. Th e G overnm en ta rgues t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt coul d n otreduce S t ory’ s s en t en ce f u rt h er. St o r y’ s a r gum e nt s a r e f o r e c l o s e d i n l i ght o f o ur r e c e ntde c i s i o n i n Un i t ed S ta tes v. D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F .3 d2 3 5 , 2 3 6 -3 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pe t i t i o n f o r c e r t . f

i l ed ( S ept. 21, 200 9) ( N o. 09-6657). A ccor di n gl y, t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourt i s A F F I RMED.
#### Thos. P. Hargraves *v.*Chas. D. Pope.

Boundaries — Courses in Deed Must Conform to Established Lines.

The last line of the lot according to the calls of the deed must run with the line of Pope street, which is known and recognized by the parties and is made the southern boundary of the lot. That being an established line the courses in the deed must be made to conform to that line.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY.

September 15, 1871.

*Young & Harbeson, for appellant.*

*H- Pope, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

It appears from the evidence of Henning, and a map of the ground filed in the papers that to begin at the intersection of Pope street with the Shelbyville and Louisville turnpike, and run thereon westwardly along the line and parallel with said pike seventy-five feet; thence northwestwardly at right angles with said turnpike seventy-five feet to the line of said Pope street; thence southwardly a straight line to the beginning, will deflect from the line of Pope street and from a right angle 2^2 degrees. But the last line of the lot, according to the calls of the deed, must run with the line of Pope street, which is known and recognized by the parties and is made the southern boundary of the lot, that being an established line the courses in the deed must be made to conform to that line. This is according to well established authority, and as the judgment only reformed the deed so as to make it conform in letter to its legal effect, appellant is not prejudiced.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.17    
    


 
 

Joinder Agreement—Securities Holders Agreement    
    


TSG
Holdings Corp.

11311 McCormick Road

Suite 260

Hunt Valley, MD 21031-1437

Attn: President 


Gentlemen:



In
consideration of the issuance to the undersigned of the shares of Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share (the "Common Stock"), and the shares of
Series A 10% Cumulative Compounding Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share (the "Preferred Stock"), of TSG Holdings Corp., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), set out below, each of the Company and the undersigned agrees that, as of the date written below, the undersigned
(i) shall become a party to that certain Securities Holders Agreement, dated as of August 21, 2003 (the "Agreement"), by and among the
Company, Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Co. II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, ING Furman Selz Investors III L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, ING Barings Global Leveraged Equity
Plan Ltd., a Bermuda corporation, ING Barings U.S. Leveraged Equity Plan LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and the individuals designated as Management Investors on the signature pages
thereto, and (ii) shall be fully bound by, and subject to, the terms and conditions of the Agreement that are applicable to the Management Investors (as defined in the Agreement) as though an
original party thereto and shall be deemed a Management Investor for all purposes thereof. 


Executed
as of the 25th day of May, 2004. 



	Name:	 	Christopher A. Pierce	 	Name:	 	Eric Lane
	

Address:	
 	

67 Portland Street	
 	

Address:	
 	

1507 Royalsborough Road
	 	 	Yarmouth, ME 04096	 	 	 	Durham, ME 04222
	Number of Shares of Common Stock: 36,859.812 Shares	 	Number of Shares of Common Stock: 896.590 Shares
	Number of Shares of Preferred Stock: 3,096.22420 Shares	 	Number of Shares of Preferred Stock: 75.31356 Shares
	

Name:	
 	

William Braley	
 	

Name:	
 	

Kenneth Stickley, Jr.
	

Address:	
 	

23 Braley Way	
 	

Address:	
 	

63 George Hannon Road
	 	 	Brunswick, ME 04011	 	 	 	Casco, ME 04015
	Number of Shares of Common Stock: 1,245.264 Shares	 	Number of Shares of Common Stock: 597.727 Shares
	Number of Shares of Preferred Stock: 104.60217 Shares	 	Number of Shares of Preferred Stock: 50.20904 Shares










This
Joinder Agreement—Securities Holders Agreement shall constitute a legally binding agreement of the undersigned. 



	 	 	Sincerely,
	

 	
 	

/s/  CHRISTOPHER A. PIERCE      
 Christopher A. Pierce
	

 	
 	

/s/  ERIC LANE      
 Eric Lane
	

 	
 	

/s/  WILLIAM BRALEY      
 William Braley
	

 	
 	

/s/  KENNETH STICKLEY, JR.      
 Kenneth Stickley, Jr.





Acknowledged
and Agreed: 



	TSG HOLDINGS CORP.	 	 
	

By:	
 	

/s/  ROBERT M. JAKOBE      
 Name:  Robert M. Jakobe

Title:    Vice President	
 	

 













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.17


Joinder Agreement—Securities Holders Agreement
Exhibit 10.1


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT is entered into as of the date set forth below between HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., with offices
at One Harrah’s Court, Las Vegas, Nevada (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”),
and GARY W. LOVEMAN (hereinafter
referred to as “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS,
an Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) was entered into on September 4,
2002, between the Company and Executive effective until January 1, 2008.


 


WHEREAS,
the Executive and Company jointly desire to clarify the Agreement regarding
Executive’s use of the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ facilities while
Executive is performing his normal duties in Las Vegas, Nevada.


 


THEREFORE,
the Executive and Company agree as follows:


 


1.             The
Company will make available appropriate accommodations for the exclusive use of
Executive at one of the Company’s properties in Las Vegas, Nevada, while
Executive is in Las Vegas performing his normal duties.


 


2.             The
parties recognize that the cost associated with providing Executive such
accommodations may, under the governing tax laws, be deemed to be additional
income to Executive.  The Company agrees
that should it be determined that the cost associated with providing Executive
such accommodations amounts to additional income to Executive, the Company will
(1) reimburse Executive for any additional tax Executive is required to
pay; and (2) pay any additional taxes and costs incurred by Executive
associated with such tax reimbursements.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have knowingly
and voluntarily executed the Agreement as of the day and year written below.


 


	
   

  	
  HARRAH’S
  ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ STEPHEN H.
  BRAMMELL

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Stephen H. Brammell

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Senior VP, General Counsel and

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Secretary

  
	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
  October 31,
  2005

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ GARY W.
  LOVEMAN

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Gary W. Loveman

  
	
   

  	
  Date:  October 31,
  2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-26-1999
<CASH>                                         463,596
<SECURITIES>                                   272,974
<RECEIVABLES>                                  882,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,508
<INVENTORY>                                    929,413
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,679,694
<PP&E>                                       1,028,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                 469,451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,383,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          946,395
<BONDS>                                      1,140,017
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           119
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,289,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,383,528
<SALES>                                      3,853,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,853,781
<CGS>                                        3,499,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,499,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,683
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   850
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,939
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                190,355
<INCOME-TAX>                                    60,913
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            129,442
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   129,442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52<F1>
<FN>
<F1>REFLECTED FOR THE TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK SPLIT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 24, 1999.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The People v. George Howard.

*Larcmy.*

In a prosecution for larceny the prosecuting witness testified that, while standing with her daughter in front of a store, she felt some one taking her pocket-book from her pocket, and on turning about saw the accused running away ; that she followed him with an outcry, and accused him of stealing her pocket-book, and that he was caught and denied it, but thrust upon her another pocket-book, which he *391said was hers, and forced a ten dollar bill on her daughter, and ran off. *Held,*that the trial judge committed no error in refusing to charge that there was no evidence warranting conviction, and in submitting the case to the jury.

Exceptions from the Recorder’s Court of Detroit. (Swift, J.)

April 18.

April 18.

Larceny from the person.

Conviction affirmed.

Attorney General *Jacob J. Van Riper*for the People.

*George H. Pewnimcm*for respondent.

Cooley, J.

The defendant was convicted of the larceny of a pocket-book from the. person of the prosecuting witness. The only error assigned is that the Recorder refused to instruct the jury that there was no evidence warranting a conviction.

The evidence of the prosecuting witness was that while standing with her daughter in front of a store on Woodward avenue, Detroit, she felt some one taking 'her pocket-book from her pocket; that she turned about and saw the defendant running away; that she followed him up with an outcry, and accused him of stealing her pocket-book ; that he was caught, and denied taking the pocket-book, but thrust upon her another pocket-book which he said was hers, and also upon her daughter a ten-dollar bill, and ran off. He was s5on arrested, and put on trial for larceny.

The Recorder committed no error in submitting the case to the jury. There was not only evidence tending to show guilt, but it was very cogent.

The conviction is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
|                       |   |   |   |                              |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|                       |   |   |   |                         |
|                       |   |   |   |                         |
| ROBISON, HILL & CO.    |   |   |   | Certified Public Accountants |
| A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION |   |   |   |                         |
|                       |   |   |   | BRENT M. DAVIES, CPA         |
|                       |   |   |   | DAVID O. SEAL, CPA           |
|                       |   |   |   | W. DALE WESTENSKOW, CPA      |
|                       |   |   |   | BARRY D. LOVELESS, CPA       |
|                       |   |   |   | STEPHEN M. HALLEY, CPA       |
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of United PanAm Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ray Thousand, certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (a) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as
of November 1, 2005.



/s/    RAY THOUSANDRay ThousandChief Executive Officer and President
10158.

#### SOVEREIGN CAMP OF THE WOODMEN OF THE WORLD *v.*WINN.

Decided May 16, 1919.

1. The assignment of error upon the overruling of the demurrer to the original petition, not having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is treated as abandoned.

2. The court did not err in excluding from the evidence a portion of the record of the coroner’s inquest.(held upon the body of the insured), containing testimony given at the inquest. This was offered for the purpose of showing that the death of the insured was caused by his own hand or act, and it was not admissible for that purpose. In civil actions, nowhere (except in England) is testimony given at a coroner’s inquest competent proof of the cause of the death of the deceased. 3 Enc. Ev. 573 (2-B), 574, and cases cited in note 29; 13 Corpus Juris, 1255 (§ 34, par. 16), 1256, 1257 and notes 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; Queatham *v.*Modern Woodman, 148 Mo. App. 33 (7, 9, 10) (127 S. W. 651) ; Knights Templars’ &c. Indemnity Co. *v.*Crayton, 209 Ill. 550 (8) (70 N. E. 1066); Grant v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 176 Ill. App. 292 (3). See also *Supreme Council Royal Arcanum*v. *Quarles,*23 *Ga. App.*104 (97 S. E. 557).

3. The court did not err in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial which was based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. This evidence was cumulative in its character, and moreover was of such, a nature as to show -in itself that by proper diligence of the movant’s counsel it could havF become known to them before the trial, - notwithstanding the conclusion stated in their affidavits that it could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence.

Action on insurance policy; from city court of Savannah—Judge Freeman. October *4,*1918.

, *W. B. Hewlett, H. P. Cobb,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. B. Stubbs,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

This ease has been passed upon by three different juries. The first trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and a new trial was granted by the trial court. Upon the second trial there was a mistrial. The third jury found in favor’ of the plaintiff; the court refused a new trial, and the defendant excepted. -

Upon the trial now under review no exception is taken to the charge of the court, and no error of law appears. Hnder the pleadings the only issue was, whether the death of the insured was caused by his own hand or act, or, in other words, whether he committed suicide. While perhaps, there was evidence which would have authorized a finding that he had intentionally killed himself; we can not hold, as a matter of law, that the evidence *761was sufficient to overcome the presumption of law that he did not kill himself, or that his death was accidental. Moreover, “when an insurance company defends upon the ground of suicide, the burden is upon the company to establish such contention by a preponderance of the evidence.” *Mutual Life Insurance Co.*v. Durden, 9 *Ga. App.*797 (1) ; 14 R. C. L., § 416, and cases cited.

In our opinion the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and*Stephens, *JJ., concur.*
No.

___________

In the

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

______________________________________

On Appeal from the 268th Judicial District Court of

Fort Bend County, Texas

Cause Number 08

- DCR

- 048561 ; and the Opinion of the First Court of Appeals

in Cause Number 01

- 14

- 00260

- CR , Delivered September 15 , 2015

______________________________________

ARTHUR ALEXANDER OFFICE

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

_____________________________________

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

PRO SE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

______________________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL

APPEALS :

COMES NOW, Kristen Jernigan

, the undersigned attorney of record for

Arthur Alexander Office

, the Appellant, herein, and files this Motion for Extension

of Time to File Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review. As set out below, the

undersigned respectfully requests a thirty

- day extension so that Appellant can file

his Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review. In s upport of said motion, the

undersigned would show the Cour t the following:

1. Appell ant’s Petition for Discretionary Review is currently due in this

case on October 15 , 2015

. PD-1236-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 9/21/2015 12:00:00 AM Accepted 9/22/2015 12:53:31 PM

ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK2. Appellant seeks an extension of thirty days in which to file his Petition for Discretionary Review , making his Petition due on or before November

14 , 2015

.

3. The undersigned counsel will not be representing Appellant after the filing of this motion. Appellant will now have to obtain and review the record in order to prepare and file a pro s e Petition for Discretionary Revie w . The undersigned believes that there is insufficient time between now and October

, 2015 , to accomplish those goals. Appellant is currently confined in federal custody in Philadelphia. Consequently, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Court grant Appellant the additional time.

4

. The undersigned has not fil ed any previous motions for extension of

time in this case.

5

. For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully requests that Appellant b e granted an extension of thirty days so that his brief in this case

will now be due on November 14 , 2015

.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned

respectfully requests that this Court grant t his Motion for Extension of Time to File

Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review

.

Respectfully submitted,

_______ /s/

__ Kristen Jernigan

______ KRISTEN JERNIGAN

State Bar Number 90001898

207 S. Austin Ave. Georgetown , Texas 78 626 ( 512) 904

- 0123 (512) 931

- 3650 (fax) Kristen@txcrimapp.com2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time has been mailed to the Fort

Bend County District Attorney ’ s Office, 301 Ja ckson Street, Richmond, Texas,

77469

, on September 19, 2015

.

__ /s/ Kristen Jernigan

___ _______________ Kristen Jernigan
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Petro Distributing, Inc. (the Company), that to his knowledge:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

This written
statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 30, 2006 |  | /s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr. 
|                     |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)   
|                     |  | President and Director 
|                     | 
|Date: March 30, 2006 |  | /s/ Edward Escudero    
|                     |  | (Edward Escudero)      
|                     |  | Treasurer and Secretary