alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion filed December 4 , 201 4



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

___ _ ___ _ ____ 

### No. 11

- 1 4

- 00 2 9 3

- C R

____ __ ______ 

### LARRY STEVEN HAYS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 10 4 th District Court Tayl or County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18536B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Larry Steven Ha ys , pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated
assault , and pursuant to the terms of the plea

- bargain agreement in this case, the
trial court made an affirmative deadly weapon finding and assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for eight years , to run concurrently with another
conviction

. We dismiss the appeal

. T his court notified A ppellant by letter s dated November 3
, 2014, and
November 1 3, 201 4 , that the T rial C ourt ’s C ertification of Defendant’s Right of2 Appeal indicat e s that this is a plea

- bargain case in which Appellant has no right of appeal and that A ppellant has waived his right of appeal

. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d)

. We requested that A ppellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. Appellant has filed a response in which he asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he was informed by the trial court that he had a right to appeal and that he could “change [his] plea back” to not guilty

. Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that, in a plea

- bargain case in which the punishment does not exceed the punishment agreed to in the plea bargain, “a defendant may appeal only: (A) t hose matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” The documents on file in this case reflect that Appellant entered into a plea bargain, that his punishment wa s a ssessed in accordance with the plea bargain, that Appellant affirmatively waived his right to appeal , and that the trial court did not give Appellant permission to appeal

. T he trial court’s certification was signed by Appellant, his trial counsel, and the judge of the trial court. The certification
shows both that A ppellant waived his right of appeal and that this is a plea

- bargain case in which Appellant has no right of appeal

. T he documents on file in this court

sup port the trial court’s certification and show that the certification is not defective.
See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

. Accordingly , we must dismiss t h is appeal without further action. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v.
State , 183 S.W.3d 6 75, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, t h is appeal is di smissed

.

December 4, 2014 PER CURIAM Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J.
Exhibit 23


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form  S-8  No.   33-52125)   pertaining  to  the  Ashland  Inc.   Deferred
Compensation  and Stock Incentive Plan for Non-Employee  Directors,  in the
Registration  Statement  (Form S-8 No.  2-95022)  pertaining to the Ashland
Inc.  Amended Stock Incentive Plan for Key Employees,  in the  Registration
Statement  (Form S-8 No. 33-7501)  pertaining to the Ashland Inc.  Employee
Savings  Plan,  in the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  33-26101)
pertaining  to  the  Ashland  Inc.   Long-Term   Incentive   Plan,  in  the
Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No.  33-55922)  pertaining to the Ashland
Inc. 1993 Stock Incentive Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-49907) pertaining to the Ashland Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, in the Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-62901)  pertaining to
the Ashland Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, in the Registration  Statement
(Form  S-8  No.  333-33617)  pertaining  to the  Ashland  Inc.  1997  Stock
Incentive  Plan, in the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-3 No.  333-78675)
pertaining  to the  registration  of 68,925  shares of Ashland Inc.  Common
Stock, and in the Registration  Statement (Form S-3 No.  333-70657) and the
related  Prospectus  pertaining  to the  offering of  $600,000,000  of Debt
Securities,   Preferred  Stock,  Depository  Shares,  Common  Stock  and/or
Warrants  of Ashland  Inc.,  of our report  dated  November  3, 1999,  with
respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of Ashland
Inc. and  consolidated  subsidiaries  included in this Annual  Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended September 30, 1999.


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young

November 30, 1999
*Friday, February 14, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

96-452.

#### State v. Davie.

Trumbull App. No. 92-T-4693. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to permit use of video equipment during its presentation of oral argument and for expedited consideration,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, effective February 13, 1997, that the motion be, and hereby is, denied.

Lundberg Stratton, J., would grant the motion.
#### In re Darrcelle COVERT, Debtor.

No. 06-10156-LMK.

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division.

Oct. 5, 2006.

*328Kenneth M. Hesser, Ocala, FL, Attorney for Debtor.

*ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTION TO EXTEND AUTOMATIC STAY*

LEWIS M. KILLIAN, JR., Bankruptcy Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Debtor’s Motion to Extend the Automatic Stay (“Motion”) (Doc. 30). The Debtor filed this case on August 30, 2006 and filed this Motion on September 29, 2006. Because the Debtor was a debt- or in Case Number 05-10543, which was dismissed within one year of filing this case, the stay automatically terminates on the thirtieth day after the petition was filed. § 362(c)(3)(A). The Motion requests the Court to extend the automatic stay under § 362(a) as to all creditors. The Court may extend the stay “on the motion of a party in interest ... [and] ... after notice and a hearing completed before the expiration of the 30-day period.” § 362(c)(3)(B). Therefore, a Motion to Extend the Automatic Stay must be filed at a time which allows for proper notice to the parties in interest and for the Court to complete a hearing within thirty days of the petition date.

In order to provide sufficient notice to all parties in interest and allow the Court to timely complete a hearing, Local Rule 4001-3, which became effective on September 1, 2006, provides that:

> A motion to ... extend the automatic stay ... shall be filed within five (5) days of the filing of the petition. The debtor shall serve all interested parties simultaneously with the filing of the motion. Interested parties shall include, but not be limited to, the U.S. Trustee, the case trustee, any co-owner of all affected property, and all lien holders of all affected property. N.D. FLA. LBR 4001-3.

Procedural due process requires “notice reasonably calculated, under all of the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” *Collins,*334 B.R. at 659 (quoting *Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,*339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)). For typical circumstances, it is the endeavor of the Court to allow parties in interest to have at least fifteen days notice. In this case, the Debtor’s attorney served all interested parties by United States mail on the same day that he filed the Motion. In effect, none of the parties received notice, and the only party with an opportunity to be heard was the Debtor.

The Motion was filed and served on the thirtieth day after the petition was filed and on the same day that the stay automatically terminated. Consequently, the Court could not schedule a hearing before the stay expired, and even had one been held, parties in interest would have been deprived of procedural due process. Accordingly, it is hereby,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the automatic stay provisions of Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code have terminated *329in this case and the Debtor’s Motion to Extend the Automatic Stay is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, this day of October, 2006.
National Fire and Aviation Executive Board

Memorandum
To: Agency Administrators and Fire Program Managers
From: National Fire and Aviation Executive Board
Date: September 27, 2007
Subject: Modification of Position Competencies Requirement

This month the National Fire and Aviation Executive Board (NFAEB) made the decision to modify the
use of position competencies within the Interagency Fire Program Management Qualifications System
(IFPM). NFAEB has tasked the IFPM Implementation Team to modify the Interagency Fire Program
Management Qualifications Guide to reflect this policy change.

Prior to this modification, employees were not required to demonstrate “all the defined competencies”
upon initial selection, but were “required” to achieve all indicated competencies before being
considered for the full-performance level or within three (3) years of meeting the minimum
qualification standards for IFPM. This modification to the IFPM Guide will change the competencies
from a requirement to achieve full performance levels, to guidance for use by the employee and
supervisor for employee development and program management.

This modification in the requirement and intent of competencies, as identified above, is effective
immediately. NFAEB is tasking the IFPM Implementation Team to review other aspects of IFPM based
upon lessons learned over the first three (3) years of this program. Additional modifications may be
coming in the future.

Please contact your IFPM Implementation Team representative if you have questions concerning this
program modification.

A

we. ZA LZ Bs €

“Kr Z c
£<Mare Rounsaville Timothy M. Murphy 7 —
USDA-Forest Service Bureau of Land Management
Fire and Aviation Management Fire and Aviation Directorate
Deputy Director Deputy Assistant Director

Modification of Position
Competencies Requirement Page | of 2



Al - )! Bove VAS

Lyle Carfile Brian McManus
Bureau of Indian Affairs U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fire Director Fire Director
Dan Smith
National Park Service National Association of State Foresters
Fire Director Fire Director

Modification of Position
Competencies Requirement Page 2 of 2
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 110 Media Group,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on August ___,  2005 (the  "Report"),  I,
Raymond Barton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations
            of the Company.



/s/ Raymond Barton
-----------------------
Raymond Barton
Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2005


A signed  original of this  certification  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.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Elwood Shepard, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: May 5, 2010  /s/ Elwood Shepard Elwood Shepard President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. and will be retained by Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1401]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Hearing of the Judicial Conference Advisory Rules Committees

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committees on 
Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, Criminal, and Evidence Rules.

ACTION: Notice of Cancellation of Open Hearings.

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

SUMMARY: The following public hearings on proposed amendments to the 
Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, Criminal, and Evidence 
Rules, have been canceled: Evidence Rules Hearing, January 13, 2009, in 
San Antonio, TX; Criminal Rules Hearing, January 16, 2009, in Los 
Angeles, CA; Bankruptcy Rules Hearing, January 23, 2009, in New York, 
NY; Evidence Rules Hearing, January 26, 2008, in Atlanta, GA; Appellate 
Rules Hearing, January 30, 2009, in Washington, DC; and Bankruptcy 
Rules Hearing, February 6, 2009, in San Francisco, CA. [Original notice 
of hearings appeared in the Federal Register on July 29, 2008.]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United State Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: January 15, 2009.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. E9-1401 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
- 2015.01.09 ltr to Tribe Chairman from NIGC Act Chairman re Amended Gaming Code - Rincon Band of Lusieno Ind.
- 2519-6
CLEAN 2014-52 Resolution Adopting Gaming Ordinance-Revised 120114[1].pdf
- [CERTIFICATION ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
REDLINE 2014-52 Resolution Adopting Gaming Ordinance-Revised 120114[1].pdf
- [CERTIFICATION ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1100EA

_____________

Emanual K. Maxwell, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

American Modern Home Insurance * [UNPUBLISHED]

Company, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: November 19, 1997

Filed: December 2, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Emanual K. Maxwell brought this lawsuit after his home was destroyed by an

early morning fire and American Modern Home Insurance Company (American)

refused to pay Maxwell's claim. American contended Maxwell or someone acting at

his direction intentionally caused the fire, and Maxwell's policy was void because

Maxwell had misrepresented earlier losses on his application. Over Maxwell's

objection, American presented testimony from Maxwell's brother showing the

brotherhad a financial stake in Maxwell's house and on several occasions fire had

damaged insured properties in which the brother had an interest. The case was

submitted to the
-1-

jury in the form of two interrogatories, first, whether Maxwell or someone acting at his

direction intentionally set the fire, and second, whether Maxwell concealed or

misrepresented material facts relating to the policy. The jury was unable to agree on

the first interrogatory but responded affirmatively to the second interrogatory.

On appeal, Maxwell contends the district court abused its discretion in admitting

the brother's testimony. Even if we assume the challenged evidence was improperly

admitted, we will not disturb the jury's verdict unless the evidence was so prejudicial

that a new trial is likely to produce a different result. See Lamb Eng'g & Constr. Co.

v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 103 F.3d 1422, 1432 (8th Cir. 1997). Having reviewed

the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that any error in admitting the brother's

testimony was harmless in light of the evidence that supports the jury's

misrepresentation verdict. We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Stacia N. Almquist, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Union Security Insurance Company; 

2. Based on myknowledge, 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 respectto 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 officer(s) 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 theregistrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder 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 beingprepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter 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 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficienciesand 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’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: November 9, 2007
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated January 9, 2009, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on January 21, 2009, (74 FR 3642), Johnson Matthey Inc., Custom Pharmaceuticals Department, 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066-1742, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
ScheduleTetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
IDihydromorphine (9145)
IDifenoxin (9168)
IPropiram (9649)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethamphetamine (1105)
IILisdexamfetamine (1205)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IINabilone (7379)
IICocaine (9041)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDihydrocodeine (9120)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIEcgonine (9180)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMeperidine (9230)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone intermediate (9254)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIThebaine (9333)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
IINoroxymorphone (9668)
IIAlfentanil (9737)
IIRemifentanil (9739)
IISufentanil (9740)
IIFentanyl (9801)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Johnson Matthey Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Johnson Matthey Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: June 3, 2009. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E9-13355 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
MOTION DOCKET

88-1524.

#### State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 53323. On motion to set execution date. Motion denied.

Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 10.2a



Under the  Company's  1997  Officers  Variable  Pay Plan,  the  President of the
Company,  with the  approval of the Human  Resources  Committee  of the Board of
Directors, annually designates the officers who will participate in the program,
establishes  their  participation  level, and establishes  certain financial and
operational  goals for the Company which must be satisfied in order for variable
pay awards to be made. The impact, if any, of each officer's  performance on his
or her variable pay award is determined  by the  President of the Company,  with
the approval of the Human Resources Committee.  Subject to final approval by the
Human  Resources  Committee  of the  Board  of  Directors,  the  President  also
determines  at year-end the degree to which those goals have been  satisfied and
the amount of variable pay to be awarded to participating officers, if any.