alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50568 Summary Calendar

DAVID GOAD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
JUDGE GARY L. STEEL; JUDGE DIBRELL W. WALDRIP; HEATHER KELLER, Clerk; MEAGAN DOW, Coordinator; SAVANNAH MAURER, Coordinator; DOES 1

- 10, Inclusive; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Securiti zed Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2007

- BR4, Mortgage Pass

- Through Certificates, Series 2007

- BR4; TARA DANIEL; LORI LIANE LONG; BRANDON B. WOLF; NOVIA SALAS,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Cour t for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:19

- CV

- 329

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * The plaintiff, David Goad, is appealing the dismissal of his case for failure to pay the requisite filing fee in an earlier action. The district court reviewed the filings in both the instant case and the earlier case and found no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 4, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50568 Document: 00515331638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2020No. 19

- 50568

2 record that Goad ever pai d the filing fee. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case.
AFFIRM. Case: 19-50568 Document: 00515331638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             445
<SECURITIES>                                    10,303
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                        43
<INVENTORY>                                      4,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,092
<PP&E>                                           6,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,942
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,886
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,131
<SALES>                                          6,087
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,144
<CGS>                                            2,386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,701
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,677)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,676)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,790)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.70)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Timothy Gutkaiss, Appellant, v The People of the State of New York, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 677]

Lahtinen, J.

Petitioner applied for a copy of the presentence investigation report prepared in connection with the criminal action against him in order to prepare for an appearance before the Board of Parole. County Court denied his application and petitioner now appeals.

We reverse. A presentence report “is confidential and may not be made available to any person . . . except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court” (CPL 390.50 [1]). Where no statutory authority is cited, a petitioner may be entitled to disclosure of the report “upon a proper factual showing for the need thereof’ *(Matter of Shader v People,*233 AD2d 717, 717 [1996]; *accord Matter of Kilgore v People,*274 AD2d 636, 636 [2000]; *Matter of Hoyle v People,*274 AD2d 633, 633 [2000]; *see Matter of Blanche v People,*193 AD2d 991, 992 [1993]). Here, as petitioner had no*980tice of an impending hearing before the Board and his presentence report was one of the factors to be considered by the Board in determining his application for release *(see*Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a]; [2] [c]), we find that petitioner made a proper factual showing entitling him to a copy of the report after in camera review and such redaction as County Court may find appropriate *(see Matter of Shader v People,*233 AD2d at 717).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the County Court of Washington County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 22

                               CRAIG CORPORATION


                        Subsidiaries of the Registrant



          Craig Management, Inc., a California corporation, wholly owned by
          Registrant.

          Dimension Specialty Company, a Delaware corporation, owned by
          Registrant.

          James J. Cotter Company & Associates, Inc., a California
          corporation, wholly owned by Registrant.

          Stater Bros. Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, 50% owned by
          Registrant.

          Reading Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, 49% owned by Registrant.

          Citadel Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation, 39.4% voting
          ownership by Registrant

          Reading Cinema International LLC, a Delaware limited liability 
          Company, 50% owned by Registrant


The subsidiaries omitted from the foregoing list do not, considered in the
aggregate, constitute a significant subsidiary.

                                                                              64
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: November 9, 2009
    /s/ Edward K. ChristianEdward K. ChristianChief Executive OfficerDated: November 9, 2009
    /s/ Samuel D. BushSamuel D. BushChief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Tyler L., an Infant. Herkimer County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Morris K., Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 519]

Present-Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelvin B. Murphy, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 518]

Present-Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00243-CR

VICTORIA ANN DOUGLAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 42769-B

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following an open plea of guilty, Victoria Ann Douglas was convicted of theft and

sentenced to nine months’ confinement in a state jail facility. In a single point of error, she 

contends on appeal that the trial court erred in assessing attorney’s fees against her because she 

had been found indigent. We agree and modify the judgment by deleting the attorney’s fee

assessment.

The judgment reflects an assessment of $382.50 in attorney’s fees against Douglas. The 

record also shows that, due to her indigent status, Douglas has been represented by appointed 

counsel throughout these proceedings and received a copy of the appellate record free of charge.

Before a trial court can order an individual previously adjudged to be indigent to pay all 

or part of the fees of appointed counsel, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the court 

to determine whether the “defendant has financial resources that enable him to offset in part or in 

whole” the cost of his appointed counsel. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 26.05(g) (West 

Supp. 2013). Further, Article 26.05(g) “requires a present determination of financial resources.” 

Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (speculation about future resources 

not allowed). In this case, Douglas was deemed indigent, and the trial court made no further 

finding regarding her financial status prior to the assessment of attorney’s fees. Consequently, 

the trial court erred in assessing attorney’s fees against Douglas. In such a situation, the proper 

remedy is to modify the judgment by removing the unauthorized fee assessment. Id.; see Martin

v. State, 405 S.W.3d 944, 948 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.).
3

We, therefore, modify the judgment of the trial court by deleting the $382.50 assessment 

for the fees of Douglas’s court-appointed attorney. As modified, the trial court’s judgment is 

affirmed.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: May 8, 2014

Date Decided: May 30, 2014

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the July 31,
1997 consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                          41,636
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  512,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                    57,819
<INVENTORY>                                    511,702
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,046,879
<PP&E>                                         177,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,281,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,749
<BONDS>                                        451,459
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           350
<OTHER-SE>                                     541,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,281,206
<SALES>                                      1,253,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,253,818
<CGS>                                          643,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  643,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                55,850
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 79,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,305
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             50,553
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    50,553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37
        

</TABLE>
exv10w22






Exhibit 10.22




Summary of 2009 Executive Compensation Bonus Policy



On March 10, 2009, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of comScore, Inc. (the
“Company”), following a review of the Company’s executive compensation program in conjunction with
its outside compensation consultant, approved a policy authorizing bonuses based on executive
performance during the Company’s 2009 fiscal year to be paid entirely with awards of restricted
stock according to the following target bonus award levels for each of the Company’s named
executive officers below:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Target Restricted Stock
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Award Level as a
	Name and Principal Position	 	2009 Base Salary	 	% of Base Salary
	Magid M. Abraham, Ph.D.
	 	$	425,000	 	 	 	240 	%
	President, Chief Executive Officer And Director
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	John M. Green
	 	$	302,400	 	 	 	125	%
	Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Gian M. Fulgoni
	 	$	375,000	 	 	 	190	%
	Executive Chairman of the Board Of Directors
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Gregory T. Dale
	 	$	275,600	 	 	 	92	%
	Chief Technology Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Christiana L. Lin
	 	$	250,000	 	 	 	92	%
	General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 






The Company anticipates that the above bonus restricted stock awards, if awarded, will be made
during the first quarter of 2010 based on each executive’s actual performance. The Company further
expects that one-quarter of the number of shares of the restricted stock award to each named
executive officer would vest immediately upon the grant date, and the remaining three-quarters of
the shares of the restricted stock award would vest ratably over the three-year period following
the grant date.
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
 On August 16, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the District Court of the Southern District of New York in a lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Monroe Iron & Metal Co., Inc. et al.,*
                     Civil Action No. 17-6217. In this action the United States seeks, as provided under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, recovery of response costs from three parties regarding the Port Refinery Superfund Site (“Site”) in the Village of Rye Brook, New York. The proposed Consent Decree resolves the United States' claims and requires the Monroe Iron & Metal Co., Inc., Ocanna, Inc., and Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. to pay, in aggregate, $151,503 in reimbursement of the United States' past response costs regarding the Site. The publication of this notice opens the public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Monroe Iron & Metal Co., Inc. et al.,*
                     Civil Action No. 17-6217, D.J. Ref. 90-11-3-1142/2. All comments must be submitted no later than 30 days after the publication date 
                    ( print page 40021)
                    of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov*.By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: 
                    *http://www.usdoj.gov/​enrd/​Consent_​Decrees.html.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please email your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $6.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Susan M. Akers, Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2017-17784 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
## NUMBER 13

- 20

- 00 412

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE DIANNA BERNSEN

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or Mandamus.



## ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina Order Per Curiam

Relator Dianna Bernsen filed a petition for “W rit of H abeas C orpus or M andamus ”

and motion for emergency stay in the above cause on October 1, 2020, seeking to void

the trial court ’s judgment of contempt . The judgment orders the Relator’s confinement in

the Nueces County jail for a period of ninety days. Through the motion for emergency

stay, relator seeks to stay the trial court’s judgment of contempt pending resolution of this

origin al proceeding.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion for eme rgency stay,

is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. The motion for emergency stay is2 GRANTED and the trial court’s judgment of contempt is ordered STAYED pending further

order of this Court , or until the case is finally decided. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10 (b)

(“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case

is finally decided .”).

The Court requests that the real parties in interest 1

, or any others whose interest

would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of

mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See T EX

.
R. A PP

. P. 52.2, 5 2.4, 52.8.

IT IS SO ORDERED

.
PER CURIA M

D elivered and filed the 5th day of October

, 2020

.

1 Real parties in interest include: the ward Leon Bernsen Sr., the temporary guardian for the ward R. Clay Hob l it, Bernsen Farms, Ltd., Lynn Bernsen Allison, and Bradley Pickens.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Nicholas L. Teti, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Inamed Corporation (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



Dated:
March 15, 2004

/s/
Nicholas L. Teti
Nicholas L. Teti, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Inamed Corporation and will be retained by Inamed Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
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 on Form 10-Q of Kennedy-Wilson, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, William J. McMorrow, Chief Executive Officer and Freeman A. Lyle, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, as amended; 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/ William J. McMorrow
|-----------------------
|Name:                  
|Title:                 
|Date:                  
|                       
|/s/ Freeman Lyle       
|Name:                  
|Title:                 
|Date:
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                         PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                            VALENCE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the "Form 10-Q") for
the quarter ended September 30, 2005, of Valence Technology, Inc. (the
"Issuer").

          I,   Thomas F. Mezger, the Principal Financial Officer of the Issuer,
               certify that to the best of my knowledge:

               (i)  the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
                    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
                    Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

               (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
                    in all material respects, the financial condition and
                    results of operations of the Issuer.


                                                  /s/ Thomas F. Mezger
Dated:  November 9, 2005                          ------------------------------
                                                  Thomas F. Mezger
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00144-CR

JAMES WILLIAM UTZMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 46,051-B

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the reporter’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive data” as 

that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social security 

number, tax identification number or similar government-issued personal identification number.” 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(1). Volume five of the reporter’s record includes a social security number. 

Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, 

including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” TEX.R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper 

form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because volume 

five of the reporter’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her 

appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal volume five of the electronically filed reporter’s 

record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: November 21, 2017