alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ACCEPTED

04-15-00387-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

7/21/2015 2:09:05 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7/21/2015 2:09:05 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
AP9 R04-30-92 S:\FormsLib\Civil Bureau\Civil Courts & Post Judgment\Post Trial\Appeal Status Card Revised 01-18-2013

RDATE 7/22/2015

 NOTICE OF APPEALS

ASSIGNMENT OF COURT OF APPEALS

TO: 1ST COURT OF APPEALS 

From: Deputy Clerk: MICHELLE LOPEZ

 Chris Daniel, District Clerk

Harris County, T E X A S

CAUSE: 2014-05868 

VOLUME PAGE OR IMAGE # 66072295

DUE 10/30/2015 ATTORNEY 11079300

NOTICE OF APPEAL HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE 1ST

DATE JUDGMENT SIGNED: 7/2/2015 

REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT DATE FILED: 7/8/2015 

REQUEST TRANSCRIPT DATE FILED N/A

NOTICE OF APPEAL DATE FILED 7/21/2015

NUMBER OF DAYS: ( CLERKS RECORD ) 120

FILE ORDERED: YES NO IMAGED FILED: YES NO 

CODES FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL: BC, C, OA

CHRIS DANIEL 

Harris County, District Clerk

By: /s/MICHELLE LOPEZ 

 MICHELLE LOPEZ, Deputy

BC NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

BG NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED – GOVERNMENT

C JUDGMENT BEING APPEALED

D - ACCELERATED APPEAL

OA NO CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED

O CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED (W/NOTICE OF APPEAL)

NA AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/22/2015 8:48:44 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk





JUC8H (NR4#) JUSTICE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM JUL 22, 2015(C1) 

INT6510 CIVIL CASE INTAKE OPT: _____ - INT

 GENERAL PARTY INQUIRY PAGE: 1 - 1

 

CASE NUM: 201405868__ PJN> __ TRANS NUM: _________ CURRENT COURT: 333 PUB? _

CASE TYPE: BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE STATUS: DISPOSED (FINAL) 

STYLE: GULF COAST INTERNATIONAL L L C VS RESEARCH CORPORATION OF THE UNIVE

=============================================================================

 **** INACTIVE PARTIES **** 

 PJN PER/CONN COC BAR PERSON NAME PTY ASSOC. ATTY 

 NUM NUMBER STAT 

 _ 00003-0001 AGT RESEARCH CORPORATION OF THE UN 

 _ 00002-0001 DEF RESEARCH CORPORATION OF THE UN 

 _ 00001-0001 PLT 11079300 GULF COAST INTERNATIONAL L L C KAISER, JEFFE

 

 

 

 

 

 

==> (3) CONNECTION(S) FOUND 

1=ACTIVE 2=ATY. INQ. 3=ACT.ENTRY 4=ISS. SERV. 5=DOC. INQ. 

6=CASE INQ. 7=BACKWARD 8=FORWARD 9=PTY. ADDR. 10=REFRESH 11=HELP
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.22(c)

                                November 28, 2001

Mr. James H. Heagle

Dear Mr. Heagle:

         The terms of your employment with National Service Industries, Inc.
("NSI") are currently covered by a letter agreement ("Agreement") dated March
28, 2000, between you and NSI. As you are aware, effective November 30, 2001,
NSI is spinning-off the lighting and chemicals businesses currently held by
NSI's subsidiary, Acuity Brands, Inc. ("Acuity"). In connection with the
spin-off, you will become an employee of Acuity or one of its affiliates. Acuity
hereby agrees to assume the Agreement and to perform all of the obligations of
NSI under the Agreement.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            ACUITY BRANDS, INC.



                                            By: /s/ James S. Balloun
                                                --------------------------
                                                   James S. Balloun
                                                   Chairman, President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Arroyo, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 409]

No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
Case 2:10-mj-09375-ARM Document 1 Filed 10/20/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1
CERTIFICATION
OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NORTHEAST
AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC. for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, I, William
Solko, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of NORTHEAST
AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC.  hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.
            Such
      quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            The
      information contained in such quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ending March 31, 2009, fairly represents in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of NORTHEAST AUTOMOTIVE
      HOLDINGS, INC.




Date: May
20, 2009




NORTHEAST
AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC.




By:
      /s/ William
      SolkoWilliam
      SolkoChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6375

JOHN KEITH SMITH,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VA Department of Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:13-cv-00856-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Keith Smith, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Uberman, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Keith Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### GRUSKIN v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.

Civ. A. No. 222.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 11, 1939.

*23Harry A. Heilman and Kountz & Fry, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Smith, Buchanan & Ingersoll and William H. Eckert, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

GIBSON, District Judge.

The above entitled case was transferred from a Pennsylvania State Court. The plaintiff’s reply, the last pleading, was filed on March 1, 1939. No demand for a jury trial was made, but on May 10, 1939, more than two months after the last pleading, plaintiff’s counsel presented a motion for an order placing the case upon the Jury Trial List. The inadvertence of counsel was alleged as the cause of the delay in the demand, the inadvertence being due largely to the fact that the action had been begun in a State Court in which the right of trial by jury existed without demand therefor.

Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides that the demand for jury trial must be made “not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue.” But Rule 6(b) (2) of the same rules authorizes the court, for cause shown, at any time within its discretion, to permit any period of time prescribed by the Rules to be enlarged where the failure was the result of excusable neglect.

The delay in the instant case was such as to preclude the court from exercising its discretion in favor of the motion under ordinary circumstances. However, the Federal Rules had not been in operation for a long period when the action was brought, and many were not familiar with all their requirements and did not realize that they would replace the State Rules of Procedure in a removed case. Having these facts in mind the court will allow the motion. In the future it cannot allow the like elasticity to its discretion, as otherwise the rule would be a nullity.
Case 2:10-cv-06376-KSH -PS Document 1-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 10
Case 2:10-cv-06376-KSH -PS Document 1-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 11
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **** **PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 I, Emil H. Soika, President and Chief Executive Officer of Criticare Systems, Inc., certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Criticare Systems, 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 officer 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 (the registrants fourth 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
 
 
 5.  The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 (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.
 
 
 Date: September 28, 2004
 
 
 /s/ Emil H. Soika
 ____________________________
 Emil H. Soika
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 
  2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle GasResources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30, 2010,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Ronald T. Barnes, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretaryof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Date:August 16, 2009

 
|   | /s/  Ronald T. Barnes                   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald  T. Barnes                       |
|   | Senior  Vice President, Chief Financial |
|   | Officer  and Secretary                  |

 

1

----
#### COHN v. COLUMBIA PICTURES CORPORATION et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 24, 1949.

*205Sol A. Rosenblatt, New York City, for plaintiff.

Schwartz & Frohlich, New York City, Louis D. Frohlich, New York City, Herbert P. Jacoby, New York City, for defendants.

RIFKIND, District Judge.

On the defendant’s motion and plaintiff’s cross-motion:

1. The action is dismissed as against defendant Blancke. He is not an indispensable party. Jurisdiction of the action is thereby preserved. Weaver v. Marcus, 4 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 862, 175 A.L.R. 1305; Wells v. Universal Pictures Co., 2 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 690, 692. Notice provisions of Rule 23(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., are in applicable.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter is denied.

3. The moving defendants, having served a motion purporting to affect the ■complaint, have appeared. Rule 2, Civil Rules, S.D.N.Y. Service of an amended ■complaint may, therefore, be made upon their attorneys. Rule 5(b), Federal Rules ■of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course before answer. To avoid question of compliance with Rule 21, let him now serve his amended complaint upon the attorneys •for the defendants.
# table60_q8_size
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15630]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the 
ACRS Subcommittee on AP 1000; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on the AP 1000 will hold a meeting on July 
23-24, 2009, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(4) to protect information that is proprietary to the 
Westinghouse Electric Company or its contractors.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Thursday, July 23, 2009-8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Friday, July 24, 2009-8:30 a.m.-5 pm.
    The Subcommittee will review selected chapters of the Draft Safety 
Evaluation Report associated with the amendment to the AP 1000 Design 
Certification Document and selected chapters of the Draft Safety 
Evaluation Report associated with the Bellefonte Reference Combined 
License Application. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and 
hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and other 
interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather 
information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed 
positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full 
Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. 
Michael Lee, (Telephone: 301-415-6887) five days prior to the meeting, 
if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted. Detailed procedures for the conduct of 
and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal 
Register on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268-58269).
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:15 a.m. and 5:15 
p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact 
the above named individual at least two working days prior to the 
meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: June 25, 2009.
Antonio Dias,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch B, Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E9-15630 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lloyd Clarke, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 518]

No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1361

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Prince Columbus Wood, Jr., also *

known as Cody Hughes, also known * [UNPUBLISHED]

as Paul Broadway, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 29, 2000

Filed: September 6, 2000

___________

Before HANSEN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Prince Columbus Wood, Jr. pleaded guilty to selling and receiving stolen

vehicles, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to an

unexpired term of imprisonment on an earlier federal sentence. Counsel filed a brief

and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Wood

filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
-2-

Wood argues the district court improperly refused to depart downward based on

Wood's age and health, and by finding losses in excess of $200,000. We decline to

review Wood's arguments, however, because the district court's decision not to depart

downward was discretionary, see United States v. Correa, 167 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir.

1999), and Wood specifically withdrew his objection to the court's amount-of-lossfinding at sentencing, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); United

States v. Tulk, 171 F.3d 596, 600 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Gutierrez, 130 F.3d

330, 332 (8th Cir. 1997).

Wood also argues the district court improperly failed to credit proceeds from a

forfeiture sale of Wood's property against the loss calculation or the restitution order,

and the district court judge was biased because the judge allegedly commutes to

chambers in an airplane flown by the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted

Wood. We note Wood offers no proof in support of his allegation. We also reject

these arguments. See United States v. Jenkins, 141 F.3d 850, 852 (8th Cir. 1998) (per

curiam) (judicial bias); United States v. Emerson, 128 F.3d 557, 566-67 (7th Cir. 1997)

(district court not required to offset restitution with proceeds from forfeiture of

defendant's property).

Finally, Wood points to a misstatement in counsel's Anders brief: that Wood's

sentence on the stolen property charges will "be followed by" his unexpired term of

imprisonment. Counsel's misstatement is irrelevant, however, because the district court

correctly described the order of the two prison terms at the sentencing hearing and in

its written judgment.

We find no other nonfrivolous issues, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),

and thus grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENTOFSANCHEZ PRODUCTION PARTNERS GP LLC

This Amendment No. 1 to Limited Liability Company Agreement (as amended, restated, supplemented and otherwise modified from time to time, this “Amendment”) of Sanchez Production Partners GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), is made and entered into as of May 8, 2015, by SP Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Holdings”), as the sole Member of the Company.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, on March 2, 2015, Holdings entered into that certain Limited Liability Company Agreement of the Company (the “Original LLC Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, Holdings desires to amend the Original LLC Agreement as set forth herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, the covenants and agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Holdings, as the sole Member of the Company, hereby enters into this Amendment in its entirety as follows:

1.Amendments.

a.Section 6.2(a)(iv) of the Original LLC Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

(iv)Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Board may be taken without a meeting if such action is evidenced in writing and signed by the Chairman of the Board and at least four (4) other members of the Board.

b.The Original LLC Agreement is hereby amended by deleting each of Section 6.2(d)(iii) and Section 6.2(d)(iv) therefrom.

2.Agreement in Effect.  Except as hereby amended, the Original LLC Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

3.Applicable Law.   This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. 

4.Severability.   Each provision of this Amendment shall be considered severable and if for any reason any provision or provisions herein are determined to be invalid, unenforceable or illegal under any existing or future law, such invalidity, unenforceability or illegality shall not 

			 		

----

 

impair the operation of or affect those portions of this Amendment that are valid, enforceable and legal. 

 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

			 		

			 		

3

----

 

			 		

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Member has executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above.

 

SP HOLDINGS, LLC

 

By:  SP Capital Holdings, LLC, its manager

 

 

By:/s/ Antonio R. Sanchez, III

Name:  Antonio R. Sanchez, III

Title:    Manager

 

			 		

----
| (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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. |

| Date: February 14, 2012 |   | By: /s/ Ron Hanna                                         |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Ron Hanna, President                                      |   |
|                    |   | (Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |   |