alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-60032

National Labor Relations Board, 

Petitioner,

versus

Southwest Displays and Events, doing business as

SWXGlobal Design & Production, 

Respondent.

Application for Summary Entry of a Judgment of the

National Labor Relations Board

NLRB No. 16-CA-264618

Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Southwest Displays and Events makes and delivers tradeshow 

exhibits. With certain exclusions, all its employees performing “production 

work” in its Dallas-based plant belong to a Union. The Union’s relationship 

with Southwest, though, turned sour in the summer of 2020. That was when 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60032 Document: 00516226064 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2022
No. 22-60032

2

Southwest withdrew its recognition of the Union.1 It also refused to give the 

Union requested health-and-safety information. 

The Union complained to the National Labor Relations Board. The 

NLRB filed a complaint against Southwest. An Administrative Law Judge 

found that Southwest violated the National Labor Relations Act by both 

withdrawing its recognition of the Union and refusing to provide it with the 

requested health-and-safety information. The NLRB’s Board then 

transferred the case to itself. It informed Southwest that it had about a month 

to file exceptions to the ALJ’s decision. See 29 C.F.R. § 102.46. Otherwise, 

the ALJ’s decision was liable to stick. See id. § 102.48. Southwest never did.

The Board adopted the ALJ’s decision, and now asks us for a summary entry 

of judgment to enforce its order.

Congress has provided that “[n]o objection that has not been urged 

before the Board . . . shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or

neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary 

circumstances.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). And we have emphasized that “fail[ing] 

to comply with the [Board’s] regulations requiring the filing of written 

exceptions” entitles the Board to summary entry of judgment. N.L.R.B. v. 

Mooney Aircraft, Inc., 310 F.2d 565, 566 (5th Cir. 1962) (per curiam).

Southwest, for its part, does not dispute the facts. It only disputes that its 

conduct amounted to an FLSA violation. But that is a merits dispute, and

disputing the merits is not the kind of extraordinary circumstance that

exempts companies from the Board’s procedural rules. Therefore, IT IS 

ORDERED that the Petitioner’s application for summary entry of a 

judgment enforcing an order of the NLRB is GRANTED.

1 Southwest about-faced its withdrawal of recognition about a year later, in June 

2021.

Case: 22-60032 Document: 00516226064 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2022
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




SECOND AMENDMENT

TO THE




SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL

RETIREMENT PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS



     WHEREAS, Service Corporation International (the “Company”) adopted the Service Corporation
International Retirement Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “Non-Employee Directors’ Plan”) for
the benefit of the non-employee directors of the Company;



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined that the Non-Employee Directors’ Plan should be
amended to delete the provision in Section 2.1 regarding the establishment of a mandatory
retirement age;



     NOW THEREFORE, Section 2.1 of the Non-Employee Directors’ Plan is hereby amended in its
entirety to read as follows:



     “Upon ceasing to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for any reason,
other than removal therefrom as provided in the By-laws of the Corporation and other than death
(which is covered by Article IV), a Director shall be entitled to the retirement payments
hereinafter provided, subject to the vesting schedule hereinafter stated.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, by authority of the Board of Directors, this amendment is approved and
adopted by the undersigned officer, and except as hereby amended the Non-Employee Directors’ Plan
is hereby ratified and affirmed, this 10th day of November, 2010.


SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Gregory T. Sangalis
 

Gregory T. Sangalis
	 	 
	 

	 	Senior Vice President	 	 
	 

	 	General Counsel & Secretary	 	 





’10.Misc.Second Amendment to the SCI Retirement Plan
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF Page | 1 

No. 05-17-01114-CV

____________________________ 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS 

MATTHEW D. STERN 

 Appellant 

V.

BELLA CUSTOM HOMES, INC. 

 Appellee 

On Appeal from Dallas County Court at Law Number 2 

T. King Fifer, Judge Presiding 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF 

Appellee Bella Custom Homes, Inc. (“Bella”) moves for an unopposed 

extension of time to file its brief in this proceeding and states the following in 

support: 

1. Bella’s brief is due to be filed on May 31, 2018. Bella respectfully requests a 

thirty-day extension of time, until June 30, 2018, to file its brief. Bella has not 

previously requested an extension of time to file its brief. This extension is not 

sought merely for delay, but in the interest of justice. 

ACCEPTED

05-17-01114-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

6/1/2018 4:50 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 06/01/2018 4:50:44 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF Page | 2

2. Bella’s appellate counsel has been involved in attending five multi-party 

mediations, a deposition, and a site inspection, most of which involved travel, 

during the 30 days since Appellant’s brief was filed, leaving insufficient time for

Appellee’s counsel to complete its brief by the current deadline. All of the 

referenced activities were scheduled prior to the filing of Appellant’s brief.

3. Bella prays that the Court enter an order granting its Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Appellee’s Brief and ruling that Bella’s brief be filed 

by June 30, 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dan P. McManus

Dan P. McManus

State Bar No. 13782650

Tribble | Ross

6371 Richmond Avenue

Houston, Texas 77057

Tel.: 713.622.0444

Fax: 713.622.0555

dmcmanus@tribblelawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On June 1, 2018, I communicated with Chad M. Ruback, counsel for 

Appellant, Matthew D. Stern, who confirmed he is unopposed to this motion.

/s/ Dan P. McManus

Dan P. McManus
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF Page | 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On June 1, 2018, I served a copy of this document via the e-filing portal to 

following counsel for Appellant, Matthew D. Stern:

Chad M. Ruback

The Ruback Law Firm

8117 Preston Road, Suite 300

Dallas, Texas 75225

chad@appeal.pro

/s/ Dan P. McManus

Dan P. McManus
Document Headings

                    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 State

          - [Public Notice: 10138]

                    Pursuant to the authority vested in me as the Secretary of State under the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), I hereby determine it is reasonably necessary to achieve one or                           ( print page 44486)                        more of the purposes set forth in section 204(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 4304(b)) to designate 2820 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94123, which is owned by the Government of the Russian Federation, as a location and facilities for which entry or access is strictly prohibited by all individuals, including but not limited to representatives or employees of the Russian Government and their dependents, without first obtaining written permission from the Department of State's Office of Foreign Missions. Such prohibitions will take effect as of 11:59 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on October 1, 2017.                

As a result, all persons on said property are required to depart the premises no later than the date and time stated above.

For purposes of this determination, 2820 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94123, includes any buildings and/or improvements thereon and the land ancillary thereto.

Access to the property will be subject to terms and conditions set forth by the Office of Foreign Missions.

Rex W. Tillerson, 

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2017-20269 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-43-P
aaxiii8kex102_12282011.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.2


 


 


Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC




1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200


Foster City, CA 94404







December 28, 2011







Accelerated Acquisitions XIII, Inc.


1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200


Foster City, CA 94404







Re:    Tender of shares for cancellation







Gentlemen:







By this letter, the undersigned tenders for cancellation 3,500,000 of the 5,000,000 shares of common stock par value $0.0001 of Accelerated Acquisitions, XIII, Inc. (the “Company”) which it holds.  Following the cancellation of such shares, Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC will hold a total of 1,500,000 of the Company’s Common Shares.







Sincerely,







ACCELERATED VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC







By:   /s/ Timothy Neher


       Timothy Neher, Managing Member
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 Annual Report of Jacobs  Financial  Group,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended May 31, 2007 (the "Report")
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,  I, John M. Jacobs, President
and Chief  Executive  Officer 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  Company's  Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



         September 13, 2007                         /s/ John M. Jacobs
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    John M. Jacobs
                                                    President and CEO
Document Headings

                    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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4332-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated August 23, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 15, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective September 15, 2017. 

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-20441 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 28, 2014

h0224

Order 

Clerk

February 28, 2014

147401

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147401

COA: 311876

Macomb CC: 1994-002418-FC

CHRISTOPHER L. TULL,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Macomb Circuit Court for 

reissuance of the defendant’s judgment of conviction and sentence. The record makes 

clear that the failure to perfect an appeal of right was solely the fault of the defendant’s 

trial counsel, who did not fulfill his promise in open court to file the necessary paperwork 

to begin the appellate process. Accordingly, the defendant was deprived of his appeal of 

right as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. See Roe v FloresOrtega, 528 US 470, 477; 120 S Ct 1029; 145 L Ed 2d 985 (2000); Peguero v United 

States, 526 US 23, 28; 119 S Ct 961; 143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999).

We further ORDER the Macomb Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative 

Order 2003-03, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint 

counsel to represent the defendant on appeal.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
923.0851
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE REGISTRANT,
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 Dynamex Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the COMPANY), on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the REPORT),
Richard E. McClelland, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge,
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. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ RICHARD K. McCLELLAND

Richard K. McClelland
President and Chief Executive Officer
December 9, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

)

v. ) ID No. 2101000281

)

BYRON STAFFORD, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

1. On this 9th day of January, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Byron

Stafford’s (“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Sentence Modification (the “Motion”) 

made pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b),

1

the sentence 

imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

2. On March 16, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to Robbery in the Second

Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony 

(“PFDCF”).2

3. On March 30, 2022, this Court sentenced him to (1) Robbery, five years of

Level V supervision, followed by six months of Level IV supervision, followed by 

one year of Level III supervision and (2) PFDCF, three years of Level V 

supervision.3

4. On October 5, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion, in which he asks

the Court to modify the Level IV supervision portion of his sentence to Level IV 

1 D.I. 23. Defendant does not specifically cite to Rule 35(b) in the Motion, but he asks this Court 

to modify the conditions of his probation.

2 D.I. 17.

3 D.I. 18.
2

(Home Confinement). In support, he states that his mother is willing to host him for 

this period and that he has secured employment.4

5. Rule 35(b) authorizes this Court to “reduce the . . . conditions of partial 

confinement or probation, at any time.” A motion to modify the terms of partial 

confinement or probation is not subject to the ninety-day limitation that applies to a 

motion for sentence reduction.5

6. After reviewing the Motion, sentence, and record in this case, the Court 

finds no just cause for sentence modification.6 Defendant’s sentence is appropriate 

for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

 Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Byron Stafford (SBI #00802990)

4 D.I. 23.

5

State v. Harmon, 2023 WL 7599111, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 14, 2023) (quoting State v. Baily, 

2017 WL 8787504, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2017)).

6 Where this Court has considered similar motions to modify the Level IV portion of a sentence to 

remove the discretion of the Delaware Department of Correction, it has tended to deny them. See 

State v. Snead, 2023 WL 2987103, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 12, 2023); State v. Starkey, 2020 WL 

2789704, at *2 (Del. Super. May 29, 2020); State v. Charles, 2020 WL 2026833, at *2 (Del. Super. 

Apr. 21, 2020); State v. Joseph, 2018 WL 1895697, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 11, 2018); State v. 

Kilson, 2016 WL 1590965, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 14, 2016).
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2714 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow the transport, 

purchase, and sale of pelts of, and handicrafts, garments, and art produced from, Southcentral and Southeast Alaska northern sea otters that 

are taken for subsistence purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2011 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 

allow the transport, purchase, and sale of pelts of, and 

handicrafts, garments, and art produced from, 

Southcentral and Southeast Alaska northern sea otters 

that are taken for subsistence purposes. 

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


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2714 IH

1 SECTION 1. TRANSPORT, PURCHASE, AND SALE OF PELTS 

2 OF, AND HANDICRAFTS, GARMENTS, AND ART 

3 PRODUCED FROM SOUTHCENTRAL AND 

4 SOUTHEAST ALASKA NORTHERN SEA OTTERS 

5 TAKEN FOR SUBSISTENCE PURPOSES. 

6 Section 102 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

7 of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1372) is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following: 

9 ‘‘(g) SEA OTTER PELTS AND PRODUCTS.—Nothing 

10 in this Act prohibits— 

11 ‘‘(1) the transport, purchase, sale of, or any 

12 offer to purchase or sell, any pelt of an otter from 

13 the Southcentral or Southeast Alaska stock of north14 ern sea otters that is taken for subsistence purposes 

15 in accordance with section 101(b)(1); or 

16 ‘‘(2) the transport, purchase, sale, export of, or 

17 any offer to purchase, sell or export, any handicraft, 

18 garment, or art that is produced from the pelt of the 

19 Southcentral or Southeast Alaska stock of northern 

20 sea otters that is taken for subsistence purposes in 

21 accordance with section 101(b)(1), regardless of 

22 whether the handicraft, garment, or art— 

23 ‘‘(A) is traditional or contemporary; or 

24 ‘‘(B) is or is not altered significantly’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7599

ALVIN L. MCCARVER, III, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ERNEST V. CHANDLER, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-391-5-BR) Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 30, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin L. McCarver, III, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alvin L. McCarver, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McCarver v. Chandler , No. CA-99-391-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED