alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered April 23, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 00926
- CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V. VINCENT RUSSELL GIOR DANO, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. M17
- 41558
- C

ORDER Before the Court is appellee’s April 20, 2020 motion to accept his reply to additional authority and supplemental issue. In his motion, appellee requests permission to file a reply to the State’s supplemental authority and a supplemental responsive brief, adopting the argument offered by appellee in State of Texas v. Brian Carl Jones , Case No. 05

- 19

- 00927

- CR. Appellee’s motion is GRANTED and appellee’s brief tendered April 20, 2020, is ORDERED filed as of April 20, 2020./s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA

- KIPNESS JUSTICE
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

1 West Tribal Road, Valley Center, CA 92082 ♦ (760) 749-1051 ♦ Fax: (760) 749-8901 

VIA EMAIL

 Vannice_Doulou@nigc.gov

July 31, 2017

Vannice Doulou

1849 C St. NW, Mail Stop #1621

Washington, DC 20240

Re: Notice of Release of Discussion Draft

25 C.F.R. Part 547-2008 (Grandfathered) Systems

To Ms. Doulou:

The Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians thanks the NIGC for its thoughtful consideration in 

updating the technical standards for Class II games and supports the June 14, 2017 draft 

revisions.

Sincerely,

Bo Mazzetti

Tribal Chairman

Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

Bo Mazzetti Tishmall Turner Steve Stallings Laurie E. Gonzalez Alfonso Kolb Sr.

Tribal Chairman Vice-Chairwoman Council Member Council Member Council Member
EXHIBIT 32
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Apogee Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Apogee fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apogee.
    /s/ Herbert M. Stein
 Dated: November 15, 2010                                 ___________________________________________
  Herbert M. Stein
 Chief Executive Officer and President (principal executive officer)
  
  /s/ Paul J. Murphy
 Dated: November 15, 2010                                   ___________________________________________
  Paul J. Murphy
 Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance (principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)
No. 833.

#### Stevens et al. *v.*Sinclair Refining Co.

February 9, 1942.

*Mr. Morgan M. Moulder*for petitioners. *Mr. Boy T. Osborn*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SER GIO IVAN C ER

VANTESM OR ALES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10057

D.C . No. 4:12-c r-01492-C KJ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na C indy K. Jorge nson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2013 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Se rgio Iva

n C e rvante s-M ora le s a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt and c ha lle nge s his guilty-ple a c onvic tion a

nd 60-m onth se nte nc e for re e ntry a fte r de porta tion, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 

# FIL ED D EC 06 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S. 738 (1967), C e rvante s-M ora le s’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f stating tha

t the re are n o grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c ord. W e hav e provide d

C e rvante s-M ora le s the opportunity to filea pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro sesupple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. Our indepe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 0 0 5 7 2
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: January 26, 2017 5 22847

________________________________ In the Matter of LUSHER WALLACE, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: November 29, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ.

__________ Lusher Wallace, Coxsackie, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III prison disciplinary determination. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. In light of this, and given that petitioner has been afforded all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Kirshtein v New York State-2- 522847

Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 142 AD3d 1246, 1246 [2016]; Matter of Boyd v Annucci, 142 AD3d 1214, 1214 [2016]). Although petitioner has also requested to be restored to the status that he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, he is not entitled to such relief (see Matter of Ramierz v Annucci, 142 AD3d 1198, 1198 [2016]; Matter of Guiffre v Annucci, 142 AD3d 1193, 1193 [2016]). He is, however, entitled to the restoration of any good time lost as a result of the determination (see Matter of Ramierz v Annucci, 142 AD3d at 1198; Matter of Guiffre v Annucci, 142 AD3d at 1193). Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
II 

Calendar No. 372 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3347 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program through December 31, 

2010. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2010 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

MAY 12, 2010 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program through 

December 31, 2010. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE 

4 PROGRAM. 

5 (a) EXTENSION.—Section 129 of the Continuing Ap6 propriations Resolution, 2010 (Public Law 111-68), as 

7 amended, is further amended by striking ‘‘by sub8 stituting’’ and all that follows through the period at the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3347 PCS

1 end, and inserting ‘‘by substituting December 31, 2010 

2 for the date specified in each such section.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) shall be considered to have taken effect on 

5 February 28, 2010. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 372 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3347 

A BILL 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program 

through December 31, 2010. 

MAY 12, 2010 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36965

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

JOEL R. URIBE

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 548

Filed: July 9, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of I daho,

Power County. Hon. Peter D. McDermott , District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence,

affirmed

.

Stephen D. Thompson, Ketchum, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Joel R. Uribe was convicted of possession of methadone , Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(1)(c)

. The district court imposed a unified five

- year sentence with two years determinate

. Uribe fi led

an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Uribe appeals from the

denial of his Rule 35 motion.

A Rule 35 motion is a request for leniency which is addressed to the sound discretion of

the sentencing court. Stat e v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State v.

Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion,

the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional informati on

subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho2

201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007). Our focus on review is upon the nature of the offense and the

character of the offender. State v. Reinke , 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 1184 (Ct. App.

1982). Where a sentence is not illegal, the appellant must show that it is unreasonably harsh in

light of the primary objective of protecting society and the related goals of deterrence,

rehabilitation and retribution. State v. Broadhead , 120 Idaho 141, 145, 814 P.2d 401, 405

(1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown , 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992);

State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982).

Having reviewed t he record, including the new information submitted with Uribe ’s

Rule 35 motion, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motion.

Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Uribe ’s I.C.R. 35 moti on is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcelino Garcia, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 471]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 20, 2004 *(People v Garcia,*13 AD3d 552 [2004]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered August 1, 2002.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Florio, J.E, Adams, Mastro and Dillon, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1507

DARRYL ALLMOND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, Fairfax; YVONNE

WALLACE; JERRY NICHOLS; FRANCISCA BIRAGO;

JUANI DIAZ; ANN COVILLON; JUDY SLYNN; ROBERT

WATSON; SONIA RIVERO; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-02-448-A)

Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 10, 2002

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Allmond, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Darryl Allmond seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Allmond v. Department of Family Servs., No. CA-02-448-A

(E.D. Va. filed May 2, 2002; entered May 6, 2002). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         48,681
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,891,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                   325,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,615,145
<PP&E>                                         67,590
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,882,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,695,590
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,343
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,042,495 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,882,135
<SALES>                                        9,616,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9,616,626
<CGS>                                          6,644,601
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,973,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             183,524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                459,285 
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0       
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            459,285 
<DISCONTINUED>                                 70,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   389,285
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.19  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.19  
        


</TABLE>
| (1)    | The      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,      2009 (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      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the    Report. |

| /s/ Hugh T. McDonaldHugh      T. McDonaldChairman,      President, and Chief Executive Officerof      Entergy Arkansas, Inc. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 10.2


 


Loan Agreement


 


Party A (lender): Future FinTech (Hong Kong) Limited
(hereinafter referred to as “Party A”)


 


Address:


 


Party B (borrower): Wintus China Limited (hereinafter
referred to as “Party B”)


 


Address:


 


Whereas: Party B is a company with rich resources
of target companies for investment globally. Party A intends to form a long-term strategic cooperative partnership with Party B including
cooperation with Party B in the form of equity investment in the future. Parties have reached the following agreement through friendly
negotiation:


 


1、 Party A agrees to
alone or with other shareholders and partners lend funds to Party B in the form of loan. The total loan amount lent to Party B is $6,363,000
(6.363 million USD).


 


2、 The purpose of the
loan is for Party B to expand its own business scale and its daily operation.


 


3、 Loan term: the loan
term is 12 months, from May 31, 2022 to May 30, 2023. After the expiration, both parties can negotiate an extension.


 


4、 The loan interest
rate is 10% per annum, and the loan interest shall be paid at maturity.


 


5、 If the borrower
requires early repayment, it shall submit an application to the lender in advance, and the borrower can prepay only with the approval
of the lender. If the borrower repays the loan early, the interest shall be reduced accordingly.


 


6、 If the borrower
fails to repay the loan on time, the lender has the right to recover the loan and charge a penalty interest in accordance with the bank’s
standard.


 


7、 Party A or its designated
third party shall transfer the loan amount to the following designated bank account of Party B:


 


Account Name: Wintus China Limited


 


Account No.:


 


Swift No.:


 


Name of the Bank:


 


Bank address:


 


8、 Representations
and Warranties:


 


(1) The borrower shall only
use the loan for the purpose agreed in the loan agreement.


 


(2) The loan to Wintus China
Limited is for expanding its own business scale and daily operation.


 


9、 Settlement of Disputes:


 


Any dispute arising from the performance of this
Agreement shall be settled by both parties through friendly negotiation or mediation by a third party. If the negotiation or mediation
fails, a lawsuit may be brought to the Hong Kong District Court.


 


10、 This agreement
shall come into force from the date when it is stamped or signed by both parties. This agreement is made in duplicate for each party to
have one copy and each copy of the agreement has the same legal effect.


 


	Party A (signature / seal):	Party B (signature / seal):
	 	 
	Date: May 30, 2022	Date: May 30, 2022
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

137170 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n PRIME FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices

v SC: 137170 COA: 273264 Kent CC: 01-010952-CK CASEY VINTON, Defendant,

and

BANK ONE, NA, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s1117 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2008

Clerk
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 31, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00121

- CR

Tom Benson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, J USTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD
REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the summary judgment r en d ered by the trial court

. Having r eviewed the

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial

court’s judgment . Therefore, t he Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the case

for further proceedings consistent with this opinio n. Ap pellee shall pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Exhibit 32.1











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004






In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hybred International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Kouletas, President of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that:




The Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Gary Kouletas


Gary Kouletas


President (Principal Executive Officer)






Date: ......................, 2011






This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hybred International, Inc. and will be retained by Hybred International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Order filed December 14, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00064-CR

NO. 14-15-00065-CR

NO. 14-15-00066-CR

____________

WILLIAM MARKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 7

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1852392, 1852393, & 1852394 

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was filed August 19, 2015. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. According to correspondence received from appellant’s counsel, 

appellant requested preparation of a hearing record on December 4, 2015. 

Appellant requested preparation of a hearing conducted on November 13, 2014, 

“that was presumably in consideration of the state’s Motion to Amend the 
Indictment.” The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s 

record has not been filed, we issue the following order.

We order Sandra Powell, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal on or before December 29, 2015. 

Appellant’s brief in this appeal was originally due September 18, 2015. This 

court granted extensions of time up to December 18, 2015. When we granted the 

last extension we noted that no further extensions would be entertained absent 

exceptional circumstances. 

We order appellant’s counsel Daucie Schindler to file a brief with the clerk 

of this court on or before January 8, 2016. If Daucie Schindler does not timely file 

the brief as ordered, the court may issue an order requiring appointment of new 

counsel.

PER CURIAM