alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

135272 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135272 COA: 280100 Kent CC: 04-005983-FH STEVEN MARK HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2007 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered. We DIRECT the Kent County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this order. The prosecutor shall address the follo wing issues: (1) wh ether the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) has the au thority to “cancel” defendant’s discharge from parole; and (2) whether the trial court erred by sua sponte amending a judgment of sentence, which was valid when entered, based on the MDOC’s “cancellation” of defendant’s parole discharge.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.

s0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 23, 2008

Clerk
EXHIBIT 10.1


Named Executive Officer Salary and Bonus Arrangements for 2007


Base Salaries


            The base salaries for 2007 for the executive officers (the "named executive officers") of Southern Missouri
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") also is a director of Southern Missouri Bank & Trust (the "Bank") who will be named
in the compensation table that will appear in the Company's upcoming 2007 annual meeting proxy statement are as
follows:



	Name and Title
	Base Salary

	Greg Steffens

President and Chief Financial Officer	$180,608
	 
	William Hribovsek

Chief Lending Officer	$134,844





Description of 2007 Bonus Arrangement


            The Company has no formal written incentive bonus plan. The amount of bonus award is determined by the
Compensation Committee and can vary based on various factors, including Company performance.


            Additional information about the 2007 bonus compensation is incorporated herein by reference from the
Company's definitive proxy statement for its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held in October 2007, except for
information contained under the headings "Compensation Committee Report," and "Report of the Audit Committee,"
a copy of which will be filed not later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year.
Order entered October 19, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00465-CR

VANESSA DENISE THOMAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-52793-N

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On September 20, 2016, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. We ADOPT the October 11, 2016 findings that: (1) 

appellant desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and is represented by Lawrence 

Mitchell; (3) the court reporter was Kelly Simmons who informed the trial court she would file 

the reporter’s record at the end of the day October 11, 2016; and (4) the trial court recommended 

an extension until October 14, 2016. 

On October 11, 2016 the reporter’s record was received by the Court. We ORDER the 

reporter’s record in this appeal filed as of the date of this order.

.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65526-65527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31204]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

[[Page 65527]]


ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before January 18, 2002. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Loan Application.
    No: 1244.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Certified Development Companies 
regulated by SBA.
    Responses: 5,200.
    Annual Burden: 11,700.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 01-31204 Filed 12-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesse Lara SALAS, also known as Jesse Salas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50359

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Barbara Whiten Balliette, Reid Davis, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jesse Lara Salas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. *374738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Salas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Randal J. Kirk, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Intrexon Corporation;
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 11, 2016



/s/ RANDAL J. KIRKRandal J. Kirk Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Port Operations and Safety Discussion Agreement Clears FMC Regulatory Review","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sp7IcW0dGL\"><a href=\"\/port-operations-and-safety-discussion-agreement-clears-fmc-regulatory-review\/\">Port Operations and Safety Discussion Agreement Clears FMC Regulatory Review<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/port-operations-and-safety-discussion-agreement-clears-fmc-regulatory-review\/embed\/#?secret=sp7IcW0dGL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Port Operations and Safety Discussion Agreement Clears FMC Regulatory Review” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"sp7IcW0dGL\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3314 

To prohibit certain provisions of an Executive order pertaining to land 

conservation from taking effect, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2021 

Mr. MANN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, 

and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain provisions of an Executive order pertaining to land conservation from taking effect, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Land Grab Act 

5 of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 216 of Executive Order 

8 14008 (86 Fed. Reg. 7619; relating to Tackling the CliVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:46 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3314.IH H3314

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3314 IH

1 mate Crisis at Home and Abroad) shall not have the force 

2 and effect of law. 

3 (b) RECOMMENDATIONS OF REPORT.—No Federal 

4 agency may take an action if such action is solely author5 ized by a report or recommendation issued pursuant to 

6 such section. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with BILLS
#### Albert James GOMES; Arlene Maria Gomes, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-1403.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 19, 2013.

Decided: Dec. 16, 2013.

Rishi P. Oza, Robert Brown LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Lindsay Corliss, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*367Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albert James Gomes and his wife, Arlene Maria Gomes, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying their motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (b) (2013). We therefore deny the petition for review. *See In re: Gomes*(B.I.A.Feb.27, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 8, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00447-CV 

AUTOPEDIA INC., Appellant 

V. 

TWONYA MADLOCK, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-11969 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove 

Opinion by Justice Nowell 

This appeal was filed by Homayoon Samii, appellant’s registered agent and 

owner. Because the Texas Supreme Court has stated that only a licensed attorney 

may represent a corporation in court, and nothing before us reflected Mr. Samii is a 

licensed attorney, we notified appellant by letter that the appeal was subject to 

dismissal unless it retained counsel within thirty days. See Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. 

v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam). More 

than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not complied. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Earth Energy Util. Corp. v. 
 –2– 

Environmentally Engineered Equip., Inc.. 05-10-01610-CV, 2012 WL 4845658 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 10, 2012, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for failure of appellant 

corporation to notify court it had retained counsel). 

230447F.P05 

 

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

AUTOPEDIA INC., Appellant 

No. 05-23-00447-CV V. 

TWONYA MADLOCK, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-11969. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, 

Justices Goldstein and Breedlove 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellee Twonya Madlock recover her costs, if any, of this 

appeal from appellant Autopedia Inc. 

Judgment entered August 8, 2023.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Melissa Dromgoole v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00931-CR

Trial court case number: 1840727

Trial court: County Criminal Court of Law No. 1 of Harris County

State’s Exhibit 4, a DVD containing a police “dash-cam” video, and State’s Exhibit 8, a 

blood draw video, were admitted into evidence at trial in the above case. This Court, acting sua 

sponte, orders the exhibit clerk to send the original of State’s Exhibit 4, a DVD containing a 

police “dash-cam” video, and State’s Exhibit 8, a blood draw video, to this Court. If these 

exhibits are different from State’s Exhibit 6 and State’s Exhibit 8 admitted at the motion to 

suppress hearing, then this Court, acting sua sponte, orders the exhibit clerk to send the original 

of State’s Exhibit 6 and State’s Exhibit 8 admitted at the motion to suppress hearing, to this 

Court.

The exhibits are due in this Court no later than February 26, 2014.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

Acting individually

Date: February 19, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3304 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3304

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to provide or assist in providing an additional 
   vehicle adapted for operation by disabled individuals to certain 
               eligible persons, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2021

  Mrs. Fletcher (for herself and Mr. Takano) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to provide or assist in providing an additional 
   vehicle adapted for operation by disabled individuals to certain 
               eligible persons, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Care Access Resources for Veterans 
Act'' or the ``CARS for Vets Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO PROVIDE OR 
              ASSIST IN PROVIDING ADDITIONAL VEHICLES ADAPTED FOR 
              OPERATION BY DISABLED INDIVIDUALS TO CERTAIN ELIGIBLE 
              PERSONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3903(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
        inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(3) The Secretary may provide or assist in providing an eligible 
person with an additional automobile or other conveyance under this 
chapter if 10 years have elapsed since the date on which the eligible 
person received the immediately previous such automobile, other 
conveyance, or assistance under this chapter.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of section 
3903 of title 38, United States Code, shall apply with respect to the 
provision of an additional automobile or other conveyance that occurs 
on or after October 1, 2020.

SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TREATMENT OF CERTAIN VEHICLE 
              MODIFICATIONS AS MEDICAL SERVICES.

    Section 1701(6) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(I) The provision of medically necessary van 
                lifts, raised doors, raised roofs, air-conditioning, 
                and wheelchair tiedowns for passenger use.''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50836

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Omero Rojas-Leal, 

Defendant—Appellant,

consolidated with

_____________

No. 21-50843

_____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Belarmino Lorenzo-Lopez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50836 Document: 00516213246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2022
No. 21-50836

c/w No. 21-50843

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-281-1

USDC No. 4:21-CR-520-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Omero Rojas-Leal appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal 

reentry into the United States after having been ordered removed, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), along with the revocation of the 

terms of supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. He 

argues that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above 

the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither 

alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Because he does not address the validity of the revocation of his terms of 

supervised release or the sentences imposed upon revocation, he has 

abandoned any challenge to that judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Rojas-Leal has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition 

and a letter brief correctly conceding that the issue is foreclosed by the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 

224 (1998), and merely seeks to preserve this claim for further review. See 

United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Because 

summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 

* 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.

Case: 21-50836 Document: 00516213246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2022
No. 21-50836

c/w No. 21-50843

3

406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Rojas-Leal’s motion is GRANTED,

and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-50836 Document: 00516213246 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2022
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Team Finance LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K(“Form 10-K”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David P. Jones, 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, to my knowledge: 

(1)The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: March 10, 2008