alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Miguel CANAIS, a/k/a Juan Canals, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7078.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 6, 2006.

*228Juan Miguel Canais, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Office Of The United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Juan Miguel Canais seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 will 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Canais has not made the requisite showing. 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.*
NO. 07-05-0341-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D DECEMBER 13 , 2005

______________________________ TERRESA JOELEEN WELLS A/K/A TERRESA JOELEEN NORTHCUT T, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 222 ND DISTRIC T COURT O F DEAF SMIT H COUNTY; NO. CR-02I -131; HONOR ABLE H. BRY

AN POFF, JR ., JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant

Terresa Joelee n Wells, a/k/a Terresa Joel een Northcutt, appeals from her convicti on of arson. On Apr il 16, 2004, the trial cour t signed an order deferri ng adjudication and granting community sup ervisi on to ap pellant. On April 20, 200 5, the State filed i ts Motion to Revoke Proba tion and Proceed w ith Adjudicat ion of Guilt all eging appel lant violated the terms of her community sup ervisi on. On July 6, 2005, the State filed its First2

Amended Motion to Revoke Probation and Proceed with Adjudicatio n of Gu ilt alleg ing additional v iolations of the terms of appellant’ s community s upervisi on. On August 25, 2005, appellant executed a Plea of True to State ’s Motion to Revoke Probation and signed a Waiver of Right to Appeal. Appell ant was sentenced to the Texas Department

of Criminal J ustice Insti tuti onal Div ision for a ter m of eighteen years. The certification of appeal states appel lant has no right of appeal because it is a plea bargain case and because app ellant has w aived her right of appeal. By letter dated N ovember 10, 2005, this court notified appellant of thes e circumstances

and that the appeal was subjec t to dismissa l. The court r equested that appellant

either suppl y us w ith an amended certificati on illustr ating that

she has a ri ght to appeal or inform us w hy we s hould continue theappe al, by November 21, 2005. That dea dli ne has passed, and w e have recei ved neither a response nor

an amended certification
. We have exami ned the clerk’ s record to d etermine whether the trial court’s certification is defective. Dears v. Sta t e , 154 S.W .3d 610, 613 (Tex.Crim.App . 2005). Because the trial court’s certi fication affirmatively show s appellant w

aived her right of appeal and because the record supp orts the trial court’s certification, we dismiss this appeal. See Monreal v. State , 99 S.W.3d 615, 617 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (a valid wai ver of appeal prev ents a defendant from appeali ng without the trial court’s consent); Stowe v. State , 124 S.W.3d 22 8, 234 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2003, no pet.) (“[a] defendant i n a noncapital case may waive any right secured him by law, including his right to appeal”).3

Accordingl y, the appeal is dismiss ed.

James T. Campbell Justice
Do not publish
.
#### ANTHONY v. RKO RADIO PICTURES, Inc. et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Oct. 26, 1948.

Davidson & Davidson, of New York City (Louis B. Davidson and David Targ, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Donovan, Leisure, Newton, Lumbard & Irving, of New York City (J. V. Hayes, L. F. MacMahon and E. J. Speno, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

KAUFMAN, District Judge.

The plaintiff moves to vacate the defendants’ notice to take his deposition. This action was commenced on September 3, 1948 to recover damages for plagiarism of a motion picture story. Jurisdiction is based on the ground of diversity of citizenship, plaintiff being a citizen and resident of New York, and the defendants being residents of another state. The ground for this motion to vacate the defendants’ notice to take the deposition of the plaintiff is that subsequent to the commencement of the action, the plaintiff moved to Columbia, Missouri, where he is now the Director of Public Relations of Stephen’s College in that city. Plaintiff states that compelling him to leave Missouri for the purpose of giving his deposition would place his position in jeopardy and, further, that the expense involved would be an undue financial burden. He requests that if the Court orders the examination to proceed in Missouri, he be allowed counsel fees to be paid by the defendants pursuant to Rule 12 of the Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The defendants urge that the plaintiff, once having chosen this Court as his forum, should be required to give his deposition in the district in which the action is pending. This seems to be a reasonable contention, particularly in this case where the suit was commenced less than two months ago.

The motion to vacate the examination is denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Arabian American Development Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Hatem El-Khalidi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) 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.

/s/ HATEM EL-KHALIDI
-------------------------------------------------------
Hatem El-Khalidi, President and Chief Executive Officer

April 8, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

Gunzing Conz~nission 

P.O. Box 5229 . Dura~~t, OK 74702-5229 

(580) 924-8 112 * Fax (580) 920-4966 

Gregory E. Pyle 

Chicf 

Gary Balton 

Assislanl Cliicf 

August 20,2013 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

1441 L. Street NW Suite 9100 

Washington, DC 20005 

Re: Comments on Classification of Electronic One Touch Bingo system, 78 Fed. Reg. 37998 (6-25-13) 

On behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Choctaw Nation Gaming Commission respectfully 

submits the following comments regarding the classification of a server based electronic bingo system 

game: 

As has been held by the federal courts, the three statutory requirements of bingo set forth in IGRA are 

the sole legal requirements for a game to qualify as bingo. Such games may be played with any form of 

electronic, computer or other technologic aid, as long as the aid does not permit a single player to play 

along with or against the machine. We agree that the use of the one touch auto-daub feature in 

connection with a linked bingo game is consistent with IGRA's definition of bingo and does not convert a 

Class II bingo game into a Class Ill facsimile. 

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma whole-heartedly agrees with the current Commission's interpretation 

of IGRA's definition of Class II gaming and their conclusion that one touch bingo is a Class II bingo game. 

We appreciate the NlGC allowing us and other Tribes the opportunity to comment on this important 

issue. Class II games currently make up 46% of our Choctaw gaming floors so it is very vital and 

imperative that we protect our Class II interest. 

Sincerely, 

(~-&~QU.J~L~.$ L/. Paula Penz, Gaming Commlssloner 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

Choctaws ...g rowing i~~ithpride, hope n~tdsttccess!
**Incident Business Management**

**Incident Business ManagementChecklist Optional**

     For the Preparedness Review you will need to have the following items available for review.

**1Revised 2006**

1-                                   2003

**8Revised 2006**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                             170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,602<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         33
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,864
<PP&E>                                           2,861<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,038
<BONDS>                                          1,541
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         49
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,937
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,205<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     98
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 58
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        58
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> Not separately identified in the consolidated financial statements or 
     accompanying notes thereto. 
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3244 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3244

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living 
               adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011.

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

SECTION 1. NO COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be 
made under section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 
(2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of 
Congress) during fiscal year 2011.

            Passed the Senate April 22, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3244

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living 
               adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011.
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,489-02

EX PARTE ANDRE AMERSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. D-1-DC-10-204966 IN THE 147 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed

to timely file a notice of appeal. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte

Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. 
2

As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is

the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court shall order counsel to respond to

Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings as to whether Applicant informed counsel of his desire

to appeal. The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant

was denied his right to a meaningful appeal because Applicant’s counsel failed to timely file a notice

of appeal. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it

deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: January 14, 2015

Do not publish
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.22
 SUMMARY SHEET
OF
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION AND EXECUTIVE CASH COMPENSATION
 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
  EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION
  Paul S. ShipmanChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
    
    $
    267,800David J. MickelsonPresident
    
    $
    199,243Jay T. CaldwellChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
    
    $
    125,000Gerard C. PrialVice President, Sales and Eastern Operations
    
    $
    172,000Allen L. TriplettVice President, Brewing
    
    $
    172,000
  Paul S. ShipmanChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
    
    $
    120,000David J. MickelsonPresident
    
    $
    60,000Jay T. CaldwellChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
    
    $
    10,000Gerard C. PrialVice President, Sales and Eastern Operations
    
    $
    25,000Allen L. TriplettVice President, Brewing
    
    $
    25,000
  1
#### Gene S. GROVES, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2006-7068.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 14, 2006.

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36
EXHIBIT 21.1



|                                                                |  |               
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|ENTITY NAME (all 100% owned unless indicated otherwise)         |  | STATE OF INC. 
|AssuranceAmerica Corporation (the Company)                      |  | Nevada        
|fka BrainWorks Ventures, Inc.                                   |  |               
|fka Auric Metals Corporation                                    |  |               
|TrustWay Insurance Agencies, LLC                                |  | Delaware      
|fka AssetAmerica Insurance Agencies, LLC                        |  |               
|fka AssetAmerica Insurance, LLC                                 |  |               
|fka AcceptanceAmerica Insurance, LLC                            |  |               
|AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency, LLC                   |  | Delaware      
|fka Ameraset Assurance Group, LLC                               |  |               
|AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency of Alabama Corporation |  | Alabama       
|AssuranceAmerica Insurance Company                              |  | South Carolina
|AssuranceAmerica Claims Services, LLC                           |  | Delaware      
|fka Ameraset Claims Services, LLC                               |  |               
|fka Ameraclaim Services, LLC                                    |  |               
|Trustway T.E.A.M., Inc.                                         |  | Georgia       
|fka TW Partners Agencies of Alabama, Inc.                       |  | Georgia       
|Trustway T.E.A.M., Services, LLC                                |  | Georgia
MOTION DOCKET

94-2503.

#### State ex rel. R.E.H. Co. v. Trimble.

Franklin App. No. 93APD09-1339. On request for oral argument. Request denied.
Please use this button to print

& submit via fax to

(202) 632-0045

National Indian Gaming Commission

Tulsa/Oklahoma City Region

Attendee Information

Name (First & Last) Position/Title

Business Street address City/State/Zip

Business E-mail address

**All fields are required**

NOTE: Please use a separate form for each attendee

Business contact phone number

*include area code - numbers only please

Entity registrant represents

Tribe Information

Ext.

If you do not represent a Tribe/Tribal Casino/Tribal Gaming

Commission entity, please enter agency name above.

Please use this button to submit

via E-mail (Outlook or Internet

based e-mail)

or

For further information or questions, please contact:

Tribe Name

Regulatory Review Consultation

Choctaw Casino Resort - Durant

 April 28, 2011

Rita Homa

Executive Assistant

1441 L Street, N.W. Suite 9100

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 418-9807

Consultation Registration Form
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Norman F. Swanton, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Warren Resources, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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; and(c)
    
    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 that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting;  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over the financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors:  (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; and(b)
    
    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. /s/ Norman F. Swanton   
 November 29, 2004 A signed original of this original statement required by Section 302 has been
provided to Warren Resources, Inc., and will be retained by Warren Resources,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. 3
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

David Anthony Caserta, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00025

- CR v.
State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 24754 ). Opinion delivered by Justic e Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We not e that the appellant, David Anthony Caserta, has adequately indicated his inability
to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk