alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph J. HAJDUK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 84-8811

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 1, 1985.

J. Michael Faulkner, Augusta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.

Before VANCE, HENDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

*796PER CURIAM:

I. FACTS

In 1978, Hajduk entered a plea of guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (second degree murder). He was sentenced to life imprisonment under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(2), thus, making him immediately eligible for parole at such time as the parole commission, within its discretion, should determine that it was warranted. Since that time, the defendant has appeared before the parole commission on three occasions. His current presumptive parole date is set as September 4, 1990.

In 1983, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to correct, vacate, or set aside his sentence. The substance of petitioner’s motion was that since the time of his original incarceration the parole guidelines had been increased. The guidelines in 1978 called for 40 months in prison but since that time they have been increased to 76-84 months. Hajduk alleges that the amendment of the guidelines violates the *ex post facto*clause and furthermore that such a long period of incarceration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The government filed its response and the case was referred to a United States Magistrate. The magistrate found that the motion was meritless. The district court, adopting the magistrate’s report and recommendation, entered an order denying relief and dismissing the petition. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal raising the issue of whether retrospective application of the parole guidelines violates the *ex post facto*clause.

II. THE LEGAL ISSUE IN CONTEXT

A challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commissions actions cannot be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Addonizio,*442 U.S. 178, 179, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2237, 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979); *see also United States v. Plain,*748 F.2d 620, 621 (11th Cir.1984). Hajduk’s *ex post facto*argument is nothing more than a challenge to the lawfulness of the parole commission’s actions, not the lawfulness of the sentence imposed by the court. Such an action must be brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may only be brought in the court having jurisdiction over the petitioner or his place of incarceration. As Hajduk is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in Lexington, Kentucky, he is outside the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Georgia for habeas corpus purposes. *See, e.g., United States v. Plain,*748 F.2d at 621 n. 3; *Blau v. United States,*566 F.2d 526, 527-28 (5th Cir.1978). Hajduk, at his discretion, may bring his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the proper form. However, we determine that jurisdiction was lacking in this case. Therefore, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND the case to the district court that it be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20180]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Forest Service, intends to grant to DVO, Inc. of Chilton, 
Wisconsin, an exclusive license to the Federal Government's rights in 
U.S. Patent No. 8,414,808, ``Composite Components from Anaerobic 
Digested Fibrous Materials'', issued on April 9, 2013.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Tom Moreland, Technology Transfer 
Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20250 Mail Stop 2CE-021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Moreland of the USDA Forest 
Service at the Washington, DC address given above; telephone: 443-677-
6858; or email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7c3c0dad8c5d2dbd6d9d3f7d1c499d1d2d399c2c4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87f3f0eae8f5e2ebe6e9e3c7e1f4a9e1e2e3a9f2f4">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The patent rights in this invention are co-
owned by the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary 
of Agriculture, and DVO, Inc. of Chilton, Wisconsin. The prospective 
exclusive license will grant to the co-owner, DVO, Inc., an exclusive 
license to the Federal Government's patent rights. It is in the public 
interest to so license this invention as DVO, Inc. has submitted a 
complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective 
exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the 
terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective 
exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from 
the date of this published Notice, the Forest Service receives written 
evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license 
would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 
CFR 404.7.

Mojdeh Bahar,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-20180 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LARRY CHAMBERS AND ABIE WOLF

,

Appellant s

,

v.

GARY STARR AND BONNIE STARR

,

Appelle e s

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 136

- CV

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018DCV15 81 )

O R D E R

The Court has this day GRANTED the Appellants’ motion to extend time on designation

of record. The Appellants are to file their designation and make financial arrangements with the

Court Reporter within twenty (20) days from the date of this o rder

. The Court Reporter is to advise

the Court, in writing, whether a designation and financial arrangements were made

, on or before

November 13, 2020,

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 2 th day of October , 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Simone Blank, Chief Financial 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 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.



|               |  |  |  |                                                     
|-------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|August 6, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ SIMONE BLANK                                    
|               |  |  |  | Simone Blank                                        
|               |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Sirona
Dental Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

iRu.m a. MANN i,'"' hnomnn O~"~u. \ 
Elonorable Lee hrw - ~qge 8 

IOU are rempestfully advised that it is the opinion of this department your question should be answered in 

the tkfsirmative . 

t8S, 

&&division 6, of Artiale 426, Revised Civil gtatuinsofar a8 pertinent, wwidesr 

*In bond6 or notes awmuwLby first BUM%- 

gage, first deed of trust, or other first lion 

on imprwed real estate in Texas * + * such 

bouis or notes to run for Q terns of not longer 

than ten (lo) years, and to be always acoompanied by a complete abstl?aot of title to the property mwtgaged, cind an attornejta Gertifioste 

approving the title or a title insuranoe polzlay 

in some cosnpsny lnoorporated under the laws of 

Texas guaranteeing the title andguaranteeing 

that s&d bonds or notes retain a firet lien on 

the land mortgaged.* 

The obvious purpose of the statute in thus safeguarding the funds of our savings depsrtroeats, was to see that such 

loans or ixnestmnts vGre not made fer an unraasonabls t&s, 

and the Legislature ha6 named ten years for such reasonable 

t&nut. The ten yeare natma nrarlt the time for which the bunk 

w put out ite money. The statute ie prospeotire and not 

retrospective. It is not oonewned 1~2th the past rumxlng of 

the note, but is ooncrerned only vlth the~futuro time for MI%G~ 

it will run. The idlttm of our language is such that ths infimitive *to ru@ Gonnotes the future and not the past. 80 

that, the period said bolvls or not.68 my run dates from the 

tim.a of the soquisition thereof. by the bauk, azud sot from the 

date OS the exeaution of the lnstn\arent. 

very truly yours 

ocie spe& 

Assistant
<PAGE>   1
COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-QSB (continued)


                                   EXHIBIT 11
                       COMPUTATION OF PER  SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>                                                         

                             Three Months Ended                Nine Months Ended
                               September 30,                      September 30,
                                   1997                               1997
                                   ____                               ____
<S>                            <C>                                 <C>
                                    (in thousands, except per share data)

NET LOSS                           ($424)                            ($1,600)
/ WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES          1,265                               1,265
_________________________        _______                             _______

NET LOSS PER SHARE                ($0.34)                             ($1.26)
=========================        =======                             =======

</TABLE>





Notes:
  - Weighted average shares outstanding have been adjusted to reflect the 10% 
    stock dividend paid April 30, 1997.









                                      18
EXHIBIT 99.2

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Phillip L.
Jones, as Chief Operating Officer of Profile Technologies, Inc., hereby certify
that the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31, 2003 fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.


                                               /s/ Phillip L. Jones
                                               --------------------
                                               Philip L. Jones
                                               Chief Operating Officer
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Juywy 87, 1939 

%onorablo L. A. Wooda 

State supsrintonaent of 

Publio Instruotioa 

huatia, Taxa8 
___.__- ___- -. .1. .Iy&ls, January &I, IWW, pane z. 

We do not find a oa8e wberoln a County Superlntendent has bean removed from offioa, henoa; we vlll 

ear the analogy, and in doing .this, we hold as a 

matter of law, that a County Superintendent is a 

00miy 0rf i0er. 

Y---Q--J 6% eta are a eubdivlelon OS 

a county, and eohool truateee are county 

ofSioex5.w Hendricks vs. state, 49 S. V. 

705. Klnbrough vs. Barnett. (SuFrese 

couxt). .58 3. W., 18G. 

*The Commissioner*8 Court have not the 

authority to judlolally determine a rWt 

of one to an otfioe or to remove a legally 

qualified officer from his ofrioa, for the 

jurlsdlotlon l~~thlr matter 110s within tha 

exoluslre cognizance of the Dietriot Courfhw 

Ellln~er vs. Ranklm, 89 8. W., 840. 

Thie holdinp: is supported by 8 line OT deoi8ion 

olted by Tax. Jur. Vol. U, pages 579.87+5?9,,and 

therein the rule is laid down: 

The Court (Comlasloaer** Court) has no 

authority jwlioially, to daterml.na 

o? onm to an offtoe or to remove a 

qualified officer from offioe, the 

dlotfon in,thla matter 110s within 

oognlseaoa of tha Distriot Gourt.* 

the right 

legally 

E&i3i*a 

In view or the faota, OYOXI thou&h, that ln adztinlstratlve netters the State Superintendent must bm 

appaa$ed to in 80818 instanoes before reooureo can bs 

had to Couxtt hthe&(l.as a matter of law that any 

prooeadlngs had, or hearing held betore a Stat0 Superintendent ot Publio Instruotlon, regardin& a removalto remove a County Superintendent Srom 

be void ana of,no foroe and effeot. 

nor an ettespt 

oSTloe4,, would 

Yours very truly 

G3B:GFS
APPLICATION
FOR SHARES

    


    
      
        	
                To:

              	
                Lone Oak Acquisition Corp.

              	
                 (the
      “Company”)

              
	 
      	
                Cricket
      Square

              
	 
      	
                Hutchins
      Drive

              
	 
      	
                PO
      Box 2681

              
	 
      	
                Grand
      Cayman, KY1-1111

              
	 
      	
                Cayman
      Islands

              


      

    

    


    Attention:    
The Board of Directors

     

    Date:  
June 17, 2010

I apply
for and request you to allot to me 10,000 shares with a
par value of $0.001 in the capital
of the Company, and undertake to pay all calls made upon the said shares as and
when required by the directors to do so.

     

    I agree
to take the said shares subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of
the Company and I authorise you to enter the following name and address in the
Register of Members of the Company:

    


    
      
        	
                Name:

              	
                Can
      Aydinoglu

              
	 
      	 
      
	
                Address:

              	
                Degirmenyolu
      Sok. Kutay Is Mer. C, B1.K1. Bostanci,

              
	 
      	
                Kadikoy,
      Istanbul, Turkey

              


      

    

    


    I
designate the following telephone and facsimile numbers and e-mail address for
service of notice of all members’ meetings. Notice by telephone or facsimile to
either of the said numbers or electronic mail to the stated e-mail address will
constitute good and sufficient notice to myself and I agree to advise you of any
change in these particulars:

     

    Tel:
 +90 (532) 266 76 13

    Fax: +90
(216) 577 11 78 

    E-mail
address: canaydinoglu@gmail.com

     

    Yours
faithfully,

    


    
      
        
          	
                  /s/ Can Aydinoglu

                	 
      


        

      

    

    Can
Aydinoglu
Resolution of PG&E Corporation Board of Directors



 Exhibit 10.31 
 Director Compensation 
 RESOLUTION OF THE 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 
 PG&E CORPORATION 
 December 15, 2010 

BE IT RESOLVED that, effective January 1,2011, advisory directors and directors who are not employees of this corporation or
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (collectively, “non-employee directors”) shall be paid a retainer of $13,750 per calendar quarter, which shall be in addition to fees paid for attendance at Board meetings, Board committee meetings, and
shareholder meetings; and 
 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, effective January 1, 2011, the non-employee director who serves
as lead director shall be paid an additional retainer of $12,500 per calendar quarter; and 
 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that,
effective January 1, 2011, the non-employee director who is duly appointed to chair the Audit Committee of this Board shall be paid an additional retainer of $12,500 per calendar quarter, and the non-employee directors who are duly appointed to
chair the other permanent committees of this Board shall be paid an additional retainer of $2,500 per calendar quarter; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, effective January 1, 2011, each non-employee director shall be paid a fee of $1,750 for each meeting
of the Board and each meeting of a Board committee (of which such non-employee director is a member) attended; provided, however, that each non-employee director who is a member of the Audit Committee shall be paid a fee of $2,750 for each meeting
of the Audit Committee attended; and 
 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, effective January 1, 2011, non-employee directors
attending any meeting of this corporation’s shareholders that is not held on the same day as a meeting of this Board shall be paid a fee of $1,750 for each such meeting attended; and 







 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that non-employee directors shall be eligible to participate in the
PG&E Corporation 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan under the terms and conditions of that Plan, as adopted by this Board and as may be amended from time to time; and 
 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that members of this Board shall be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attending Board, Board committee, or shareholder meetings, or participating in
other activities undertaken on behalf of this corporation; and 
 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, effective January 1, 2011,
the resolution on this subject adopted by the Board of Directors on September 17, 2008 is hereby superseded. 

  
 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6632
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KARL DALVIN CUFF, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-4-NN, CA-96-4-NN) Submitted: January 31, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Karl Dalvin Cuff, Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Cuff , No. CR-93- 4-NN; CA-96-4-NN (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 1996). We deny Appellant's pending motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Rehearing granted and appeal dismissed by opinion filed 5/17/02UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7961

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL L. MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-362-A, CA-00-1776-AM) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 11, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Michael L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Michael L. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We dismiss the appeal from the denial of the § 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely filed. The district court entered its order denying § 2255 relief on June 25, 2001. Moore did not file his notice of appeal within the sixty-day appeal period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), nor did the district court extend the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopen the appealperiod under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In his motion, Moore sought reconsideration of the court’s denial of his § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Unites States v. Moore , Nos. CR-97-362-A; CA-00-1776-AM (E.D. Va. July 23, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Kirk R. Carter v. Mount Vernon Hospital

February 29, 1984

Case No. (Law) 8661

By JUDGE WILEY R. WRIGHT, JR.

I have considered the defendant’s motion to reconsider the ruling of the Court on February 8, 1984, denying the defendant’s motion for leave to file its motion objecting to venue more than twenty-one days after service of process.

I agree with the defendant’s contention that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid motion. Notwithstanding the fact that the Court denied the motion for a default judgment and granted the defendant leave to file a late answer and grounds of defense, I was not sufficiently impressed with the defendant’s explanation for its delay in filing responsive pleadings to grant leave to file an untimely motion seeking a change of venue. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied.