alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued March 8, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00073-CR

NO. 01-16-00074-CR

———————————

IN RE THE CITY OF MEADOWS PLACE, TEXAS, AND

GARY STEWART, CHIEF OF POLICE, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

and Writ of Prohibition

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, The City of Meadows Place, Texas, and Gary Stewart, Chief of 

Police, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition challenging 

an “Order to Register Defendant as Sex Offender in The City of Meadows Place, 
2

Texas” and oral rulings regarding the city’s Ordinance 2006-21.

1 After relators filed 

their petition, the trial court signed an order vacating the order to register and any 

findings regarding the ordinance. Relators have filed an unopposed motion to 

dismiss the petition as moot. 

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the petition for a writ of 

mandamus and a writ of prohibition as moot. All pending motions also are dismissed 

as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Brown, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1 The underlying proceeding is The State of Texas v. Shane West, cause no. 1374217, 

in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Ruben Guerrero 

presiding.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason Smith, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 688]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), imposed November 27, 2007, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Prudenti, PJ., Rivera, Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4115 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to increase the effectiveness of 

physician assistance for drug treatment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 8, 2006 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. BIDEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third 

time, and passed 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to increase the 

effectiveness of physician assistance for drug treatment. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Effective Physician 

5 Assistance for Drug Treatment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT AMENDMENTS. 

7 Section 303(g)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act 

8 (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)) is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ‘‘ex10 cept that the’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘unless, 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 4115 CPS

1 not sooner than 1 year after the date on which the 

2 practitioner submitted the initial notification, the 

3 practitioner submits a second notification to the Sec4 retary of the need and intent of the practitioner to 

5 treat up to 100 patients. A second notification under 

6 this clause shall contain the certifications required 

7 by clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph. The’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) in subparagraph (J)— 

10 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘thereafter’’ 

11 and all that follows through the period and in12 serting ‘‘thereafter.’’; 

13 (B) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘Drug Addic14 tion Treatment Act of 2000’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘Effective Physician Assistance for Drug Treat16 ment Act’’; and 

17 (C) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘this para18 graph should not remain in effect, this para19 graph ceases to be in effect’’ and inserting 

20 ‘‘subparagraph (B)(iii) should be applied by 

21 limiting the total number of patients a practi22 tioner may treat to 30, then the provisions in 

23 such subparagraph (B)(iii) permitting more 

24 than 30 patients shall not apply, effective’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
#### Ronit D. Appel, Appellant, v Howard Goldberg, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[961 NYS2d 921]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered February 2, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied so much of plaintiff’s motion as sought an order directing defendant Goldberg to pay her the full amount of her contract deposit, plus statutory interest, less any monies returned to her by the Clerk of the Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By prior order of a different justice, the court granted plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant Goldberg’s counterclaim, permitted defendant law firm to deposit the escrowed funds with the court, and dismissed the claims asserted against the law firm defendants. In that context, the court’s finding that plaintiff was entitled to her contract deposit was not a determination of her breach of contract claim, which was not then before the court. Thus, the court dispelled any confusion that may have existed as to whether the prior order had determined *518plaintiffs breach of contract claim. Plaintiff is not without remedy; she may still pursue her breach of contract claim against Goldberg.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Andrias, J.E, Moskowitz, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
EXHIBIT 4.14
                          ADDENDUM TO 2003 SENIOR NOTE

      This Addendum shall be a part of and incorporated by reference into the
12% Convertible Senior Note, due December 31, 2003, made by USA in favor of the
undersigned ("Senior Note"). All capitalized terms used herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Senior Note.

      The undersigned, ____________________, is the holder of a $_____________
principal amount Senior Note. The undersigned agrees and confirms that the
Maturity Date of the Senior Note is hereby extended from December 31, 2003 until
December 31, 2006. The undersigned further agrees and acknowledges that the
Conversion Price of the Senior Note is hereby reduced from $1.25 per share to
$.20 per share.

      Except as expressly set forth herein, all the terms and conditions of the
Senior Note from USA in favor of the undersigned shall remain in full force and
effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Addendum to 2003
Senior Note on this _____ day of ________ 2003.

#1                                                   #2

______________________                               ____________________
Signature                                            Signature

#1                                                   #2

______________________                               ____________________
Witness                                              Witness


                                                     AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:
                                                     USA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                                                     By:_____________________
                                                        George R. Jensen, Jr.
                                                        Chairman and CEO
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3726 

To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to provide for continued 

payment of railroad retirement annuities by the Department of the 

Treasury, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2006 

Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to provide 

for continued payment of railroad retirement annuities 

by the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Railroad Retirement 

5 Technical Improvement Act of 2006’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3726 IS

1 SEC. 2. DISBURSEMENT AGENT. 

2 Section 7(b)(4)(A) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 

3 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(4)(A)) is amended to read as fol4 lows: 

5 ‘‘(A) The Secretary of the Treasury shall serve 

6 as the disbursing agent for benefits payable under 

7 this Act, under such rules and regulations as the 

8 Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may pre9 scribe.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation;d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in




---



##### 



the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  Date:  November 20, 2009
    By:
    /s/ RON E. HOOPERRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President and Trust Administrator
Bank of America, N.A.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>

						  EXHIBIT 12(b)
					 
	   
			 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
				    AND PREFERRED SHARE DIVIDENDS
			 SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

<CAPTION>

       
										   Twelve 
										   Months 
										    Ended  
										   Sept. 27,                                                       Year Ended 
											   1997 
(millions, except ratios)                    (unaudited)    1996      1995      1994      1993      1992
<S>                                             <C>         <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed Charges                                 
 Interest and amortization of debt discount                             
   and expense on all indebtedness              $1,374    $1,365    $1,373    $1,279    $1,318    $1,389 

 Add interest element implicit in rentals          127       121       119       114       105       165
											 1,501     1,486     1,492     1,393     1,423     1,554
 Preferred dividend factor                           6        41        89       234       209       120
 Interest capitalized                                3         5         4         1         3        23 
Total fixed charges                             $1,510    $1,532    $1,585    $1,628    $1,635    $1,697 
 
Income (loss)                                                                                    
 Income (loss) from continuing operations       $1,219   $1,271    $1,025      $857      $625   ($1,812)
 Deduct undistributed net income (loss)                                                                                         
   of unconsolidated companies                       2        8         9        (7)        6        (4) 

											 1,217    1,263     1,016       864       619    (1,808)
Add                                                                                      
 Fixed charges (excluding interest capitalized                                                                 
  and preferred dividend factor)                 1,501    1,486     1,492     1,393     1,423     1,554
 Income taxes (benefit)                            907      834       703       614       329    (1,039)
   Income (loss) before fixed charges and                                                                   
    income taxes                                $3,625   $3,583    $3,211    $2,871    $2,371   ($1,293)

Ratio of income to combined fixed charges                                                                                        
 and preferred share dividends                    2.40     2.34      2.03      1.76      1.45      (A)

<FN>

In 1996, all the 8.88% Preferred Shares, First Series were redeemed and 
therefore in 1997 the Company made no other preferred share dividend 
payments.                                                  

(A)  As a result of the loss for the year ended December 31, 1992, earnings did 
not cover fixed charges by $2,990 million. 

</FN>
</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 99.6
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
  /s/ KPMG LLPChartered Accountants
**EXHIBIT 34.8**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Board of Directors and Shareholders

LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’sReport”), that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the residential and commercial mortgagebacked securities for which the Company served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)–(iv),1122(d)(2)(i)–(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)–(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)–(x) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii)–(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for theCompany’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on ourexamination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions andsecurities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testingmay not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report andthat may have affected the Company’s servicing activities 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’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the yearended December 31, 2007  is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

 

San Diego, CAFebruary 6, 2008
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Sound Revolution Inc. - Exhibit 10.9






AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT 

This agreement dated as of January 1, 2007 amends the loan
agreement dated August 31, 2004 as amended on November 30, 2004 and on June 14,
2006 (the "Agreement"), made by and between Sound Revolution Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), Penny Green, Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company (“Green”), and Bacchus Entertainment Ltd. (the “Lender”).

Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
promises herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the Company
and the Executive hereby agree as follows: 

Paragraph 5 of the Agreement shall be
amended so that monthly payments shall not be required until September 1,
2007.

Any additional amounts loaned to the
Company by Penny Green or by Bacchus Entertainment Inc. in excess of the amounts
stipulated by the Agreement shall unless otherwise stipulated by the parties in
writing be deemed amounts loaned pursuant to the Agreement and shall be subject
to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

In witness whereof this Agreement has been executed by or on
behalf of the parties hereto, as an instrument under seal as of the date first
above written. 

Sound Revolution Inc. 

By: /s/ Robin
Ram                       

Title: President & Chief 
Executive Officer

Bacchus Entertainment Ltd. 

By: /s/ Penny
Green                  

Title: President

 

/s/ Penny
Green                        

Penny Green
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### NOV 27 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-7125
v. (D.C. No. 97-CR-25-S) JIMMY DALE HALL, JR., a/k/a Bo Hall, (E. D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining Defendant-Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. On May 28, 1997, pursuant to a plea agreement, Defe ndant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute m ethamphetamine. Because-2-

Defendant was not present for his sentencing on Sep tember 17, 1997, a warrant was issued for his arrest. After Defendant’s arres t, he was sentenced on October 29, 1997. The sentencing court found that Defendant had not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct despite his guilty plea because he had failed to withdraw from criminal conduct while awai ting sentencing. This determination was supported by evidence that Defend ant possessed narcotics, firearms, and $19,000 cash upon his second arrest. SeeR., Doc. 14 at 2-3. The court also found that he had obstructed justice dur ing the prosecution of the case because he willfully failed to appear for sentencin g. Consequently, the court increased Defendant’s offense level by five levels and sentenced him to 240 months imprisonment and sixty months supervised rel ease. Although Defendant filed a notice of appeal to appe al the conviction and sentence, Defendant’s counsel moved this court to w ithdraw as counsel because he believed an appeal was frivolous. In accordance with this court’s order to file a brief referring to all matters in the record thatmight arguably support an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), counsel filed a onepage brief stating that there are no matters in the record to raise on appeal and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Having carefu lly considered the record on-3-

appeal and counsel’s filings, we affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. AFFIRMED
. Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
#### In the Matter of Amir J.-L., an Infant. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Phillip J.-L., Appellant.

Submitted May 18, 2009;

decided June 30, 2009

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against the Administration for Children’s Services, dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]); motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against the Law Guardian, dismissed for failure to demonstrate timeliness as required by Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR) § 500.22 (b) (2). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0543

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN GUY ZENO SHAWN WOLF MASON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 1, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 23 2023

01/23/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0543
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3784 

To provide wage parity for certain prevailing rate employees in Rhode Island. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2006 

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide wage parity for certain prevailing rate employees 

in Rhode Island. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rhode Island Federal 

5 Worker Fairness Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WAGE PARITY FOR CERTAIN PREVAILING RATE EM7 PLOYEES IN RHODE ISLAND. 

8 The wage schedules and rates applicable to prevailing 

9 rate employees (as defined in section 5342 of title 5, 

10 United States Code) in the Narragansett Bay, Rhode Is11 land, wage area shall be the same as the wage schedules 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 3784 IS

1 and rates applicable to prevailing rate employees in the 

2 Boston, Massachusetts, wage area. 

3 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

4 Section 2 shall take effect beginning with the first 

5 pay period beginning on or after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS