alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11429 Conference Calendar

MARK ANTHONY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus DAN JOSLIN, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CV-1790

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mark Anthony, federal prisoner # 05991-062, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Anthony challenged his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). Because Anthony’s claims relate to errors that allegedly occurred at or prior to sentencing, his claims could not beNo. 05-11429 -2- asserted in a § 2241 petition. See Reyes-Requena v. United
States , 243 F.3d 893, 900 (5th Cir. 2001); Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, Anthony has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the “savings clause” of § 2255. See Reyes-Requena , 243 F.3d at 901, 904. Anthony’s argument that the restrictions on obtaining relief pursuant to § 2241 and the savings clause of § 2255 constitute a violation of the Suspension Clause is without merit. See id. at 901 n.19. As Anthony does not address the district court’s finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his motion under § 2255, any challenge to that finding has been abandoned.
See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 24


Power of Attorney





WHEREAS , the undersigned officers and directors of Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) desire to authorize Sherry Wilzig Izak to act as their attorney-in-fact and agent, for the purpose of executing and filing the registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, including all amendments and supplements thereto,





NOW, THEREFORE,





KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS , that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Sherry Wilzig Izak , his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and re-substitution, to sign the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, including any and all amendments to such Annual Report, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, or his or her substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this power of attorney in the following capacities as of the 25th day of       July, 2011.





Directors:





By:

/s/ Miles Berger

Date:   July 29, 2011Miles BergerBy:

/s/ Milton Donnenberg

Date:  July 29, 2011Milton DonnenbergBy:

/s/ S. Wilzig Izak

Date:  July 29, 2011S. Wilzig IzakBy:

/s/ Martin Willschick

Date:  July 29, 2011Martin WillschickBy:





By:



Date: July 29, 2011Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive

Officer
No. 789.

No. 790.

No. 791.

No. 792.

#### Prudential Insurance Co. *v.*Hobbs, Insurance Commissioner; Aetna Insurance Co. *v.*Hobbs, Commissioner of Insurance; American Indemnity Co. *v.*Hobbs, Commissioner of Insurance; and Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. *v.*Hobbs, Commissioner of Insurance.

June 10, 1946.

*Joseph W. Henderson*and *W. E. Stanley*for appellant in No. 789.

*John L. Hunt*for appellant in No. 790.

*John L. Hunt*and *Neth L. Leachman*for appellant *823in No. 791.

*822
      *Per Curiam:*

The judgments are affirmed. *Prudential Insurance Co.*v. *Benjamin,*328 U. S. 408; *Robertson*v. *California,*328 U. S. 440.

*823
      *Robert Stone*for appellant in No. 792.
Exhibit 10.1

                               Resignation Letter

December 5, 2011

The Board of Directors of
Pacific Bepure Industry Inc.

No. 78 Kanglong East Road, Yangdaili, Chendai Township
Jinjiang City, Fujian Province, P. R. China

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am  tendering  my  resignation  as  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer,
effective  today.  The decision to leave is solely my own and does not stem from
any disagreements with the Company or its Auditors. I still hold the position of
Chairman of the Board after the effectiveness of this letter.

Sincerely,

                                                /s/ Haiting Li
                                                -------------------------
                                                Haiting Li
#### BOWLES, Price Administrator, v. JACOBSON et al.

Civil Action No. 4413.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Aug. 21, 1945.

*448John A. Metz, Jr., Dist. Enforcement Atty., and Samuel M. Chertoff, Chief Food Enforcement Atty. Pittsburgh District Office, O.P.A., both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Daniel Krause, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

GIBSON, District Judge.

Chester Bowles, Price Administrator, has filed a complaint against the defendants, wherein he charges them, as “purchasers of live cattle did pay for live cattle bought, received or slaughtered by defendants during the said accounting period (April 1, 1945 to April 30, 1945) an amount in excess of the maximum price fixed by said Regulation (No. 574, Live Bovine Animals).” The complainant demanded “A permanent injunction, and injunction pendente lite, and a temporary restraining order, enjoining and restraining the defendants” from further violations of the Regulation.

The complaint in general language charges a violation of the Regulation and fails to specify the date or dates of the violations alleged. The defendants have moved for a bill of particulars asking that complainant specify the date or dates of the violations and the amount .of the overpayments. The instant matter differs but slightly from the ordinary O.P.A. complaints, practically all of which charge violations in general language without specifications.

At the hearing of defendants’ motion counsel for the complainant produced a “Claim for cattle slaughter payments under Revised Regulation No. 3 of Defense Supplies Corporation” filed by the defendants. By it the cost of the cattle slaughtered, including transportation, was alleged to be $13,856.16, the cost of transportation being $152.41. In another part of the paper, under the heading “Maximum Permissible Payment,” the amount alleged was $13,479.-99. Therefore the claim filed seems to indicate that $223.76 had been paid in excess of the maximum permissible payment. In the absence of explanation, this claim filed may be an admission of a general overpayment of *$223.76,*but it does not fix the times of the overcharge or overcharges. It could be, or should be, easy for the plaintiff to set forth the specific date or dates, as it will be required to do upon trial. The court will order a bill of particulars as prayed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. KENNETH KINDREW, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 176 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of August, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.7

[LOGO] AEROSONIC

                           SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN

This supplemental pension plan (the "Plan"), made as of this 1st day January,
2004, by and between Aerosonic Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), and William C. Parker (the "Retiree") residing at 2546 Knotty Pine
Way, Clearwater, FL 33761.

WHEREAS, the Company wishes to provide the Retiree with a guaranteed pension for
the retiree for over thirty-five years of service to the Company.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Retiree hereby agree as follows:

Duration of Agreement. Upon execution of this document, the agreement shall be
for a period of three years and can be renewed upon mutual agreement of the
parties and approval of the Board of Directors of Aerosonic Corporation.

Compensation of Retiree. During the term of this agreement, the Retiree shall
receive a guaranteed monthly pension payment in the amount of $4,166.67 in US
dollars.

Termination of Plan. This Plan shall terminate upon the expiration date being
three years from date of execution of the Plan, the death of the Retiree, or a
good faith determination by the Board of Directors of the Company that the
Retiree has been guilty of willful misconduct materially affecting the Company
or its public image.

Assignment. This Plan may not be assigned without prior written consent of the
parties hereto, except that the Company may assign this Plan: (i) to any of the
Company's divisions, subsidiaries or affiliates or (ii) upon the Retiree's prior
consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, to any assignee,
licensee or purchaser of the Company.

Notices. Any notice or other communication given or rendered hereunder by either
party hereto shall be in writing and delivered personally or sent by registered
or certified mail, postage prepaid, if to the Company, addressed to the Company
at 1212 N. Hercules Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33765, Attention: David A. Baldini or
his designee, and if to the Retiree, addressed to the Retiree at his residence
address as set forth above.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Plan has been executed by the parties hereto as of the
date first above written.

Retiree:                                Company:


/s/ William C. Parker                  /s/ David A. Baldini
------------------------------------   -----------------------------------------
William C. Parker                      David A. Baldini
                                       President
                                       Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Texas Biotechnology Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 (the "Report"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Stephen L. Mueller, Vice President, Finance & Administration of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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/ STEPHEN L. MUELLER
----------------------------------------
Stephen L. Mueller
Vice President, Finance & Administration

August 14, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit (23)(a)

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements and in the related Prospectuses:

      (1)   Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-125553, No. 333-52560, No.
            333-27849, No. 333-37241, No. 333-74958 and No. 333-45556) of CMS
            Energy Corporation,

      (2)   Registration Statements (Form S-4 No. 33-60007 and No. 33-55805) of
            CMS Energy Corporation,

      (3)   Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-32229 and No. 333-58686)
            pertaining to the CMS Energy Corporation Performance Incentive Stock
            Plan and Executive Stock Option Plan, respectively, and

      (4)   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-76347) pertaining to the
            Employee Savings Plan and Employee Stock Ownership Plan of Consumers
            Energy Company;

of our reports dated February 21, 2007, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedules of CMS Energy Corporation, CMS Energy
Corporation management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of CMS Energy Corporation, included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

                                                /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

Detroit, Michigan
February 21, 2007
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-60010 

Summary Calendar

__________________

JERRY D. GRAVES,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JIMMY PARKER; CHRISTOPHER EPPS; GREGORY BRIGGS;

JOHN DOE COLEMAN; ORA DAVIS; SAM WEBB; LEVON JACKSON;

JOHNNY MOORE; FLOYD BASS; RAYFORD JONES; JAMES DORSEY;

JERRY NORWOOD; EDWARD HARGETT, SUPERINTENDENT, 

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:94-CV-317-B-A

- - - - - - - - - -

March 26, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mississippi prisoner Jerry D. Graves appeals the district

court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to exhaust his

administrative remedies with the Mississippi Department of

Corrections. Graves has not established that a monetary remedy
No. 96-60010

-2-

is unavailable or that there is "doubt as to whether the agency

[is] empowered to grant effective relief." McCarthy v. Madigan, 

503 U.S. 140, 147 (1992). Thus, he has failed to show that the

district court abused its discretion by dismissing the suit

because Graves disregarded its instructions to exhaust prison

administrative remedies. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); McCullough v.

Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 11.0

Computation of Earnings per Share

The following represents the computation of earnings per share reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the option and warrants plan which
would be dilutive will be exercised.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Three Months Ended                 Six Months Ended
                                                                               June 30,                          June 30,
                                                                               --------                          --------
                                                                         2004           2003                2004           2003
<S>                                                                   <C>            <C>                 <C>            <C>
Net earnings applicable to common shareholders - basic                $  470,754     $  217,333          $  807,461     $  485,313
Add:  Dividend to preferred shareholders                                  28,200             --              43,200             --
                                                                      ----------     ----------          ----------     ----------
Net earnings - diluted                                                $  498,954     $  217,333          $  850,661     $  485,313
                                                                      ==========     ==========          ==========     ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding - basic                    12,483,979     12,322,908          12,447,374     12,315,655

Common share equivalents relating to stock options,
warrants and preferred stock
                                                                       3,582,024        144,913           3,606,673        120,599
                                                                      ----------     ----------          ----------     ----------

Adjusted common and common equivalent shares for
diluted computation                                                   16,066,003     12,467,821          16,054,047     12,436,254
                                                                      ==========     ==========          ==========     ==========

Net earnings per share:
         Basic                                                             $0.04          $0.02               $0.06          $0.04
         Diluted                                                           $0.03          $0.02               $0.05          $0.04

Anti-dilutive options not included in the earnings per
share computations                                                       365,100        936,431             365,100      1,186,252
</TABLE>


See notes to consolidated financial statements
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RBS Commercial Funding Inc.

600 Washington Boulevard

Stamford, Connecticut 06901

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2013-C13, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C13

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 25, 2016

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
8296

#### STALLINGS v. SOUTHERN RY.

Carrier — Freight—Penalty—Payment.—There can be no recovery of overcharge for freight and penalty therefor where the amount charged was paid voluntarily.

Before Watts, J., Spartanburg, July, 1911.

Reversed.

Action by E. E. Stallings against Southern Railway in court of magistrate S. M. Wetmore. From Circuit order affirming magistrate judgment, defendant appeals.

*291
      *Mr. J. B. Atkinson,*for appellant,

cites: *The penalty act of ipio is unconstitutional in that no reference is made to this provision in the title:*68 S. C. 149; 76 S. C. 332; 89 S. C. 94; 75 S. C. 425.

*Mr. C. C. Wyche,*contra,

cites: *The penalty act is not invalid as alleged:*16 S. C. 47; 75 S. C. 427; 76 S. C. 332.

August 15, 1912.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment in a magistrate’s court for seventy-five cents overcharge of freight on washstands shipped from Savannah, Georgia, to Spartanburg, South Carolina, and fifty dollars, the penalty for such overcharge. On appeal the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court. The plaintiff admitted in his testimony that he paid the freight without objection. This admission was fatal for since the case was heard in the Circuit Court it has been decided in *Hardaway*v. *Southern Ry. Co.,*90 S. C. 475, that there can be no recovery for such overchange voluntarily paid. This conclusion renders unnecessary the other questions made by the appeal.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Watts *disqualified.*
#### HIRSCH et al. v. TEMPLETON and four other cases.

Nos. 180-184.

United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, Winchester Division.

Dec. 28, 1950.

Walter M. Haynes, Winchester, Tenn., Maurice F. Bishop, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs.

Frazier, Roberts *&*Weill, Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.

DARR, Chief Judge.

The defendant has filed motions under Rule 12(e), Federal Rules of 'Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., in each of these cases for a more definite statement of plaintiffs’ claims in relation to causes of action (called counts in the complaint) two, three and four of each of the complaints, these causes of action being substantially the same in each.

The first cause of action in each complaint is based upon a promissory note purporting to bear the defendant’s signature. He is presumed to know the circumstances connected with the execution and delivery of the note; and this is in effect admitted by not including a complaint against the first cause of action in his motion.

Causes of action two, three and four seek recovery for the same amount as the first cause of action, and the dates shown therein for the alleged “stated accounts” and “money had and received” bear a definite relation to the date of the note, and the date of partial payments set out, evidencing different methods to procure the same remedy.

The complaint is sufficient to enable the defendant to prepare a responsive pleading; or in any event the provisions for discovery, Rules 26-30, 33-37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., are available for any further information the defendant may desire. Bank of Nova Scotia v. San Miguel, D.C., *9*F.R.D. 171, 178; Agricultural Lands, Inc., v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., D.C., 60 F.Supp. 108.

The motions are overruled.

Order accordingly.