alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## 2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-6-2007 

# U SA v . P o el lnit z P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-3027



## F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . P oe l lnitz " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 133. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/133

# This opinion has been removed from the repository a t the request of a party to the case.
#### Maurice Hanlan, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Natalie Charles, et al., Appellants, v Parkchester North Condominium, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 46]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered August 5, 2005, which granted defendant Parkchester North Condominium’s motion and defendant Citibank’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants having established, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment, it was incumbent on plaintiffs to come forward with evidence establishing a material issue of fact requiring a trial *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Plaintiffs failed to meet that burden. Neither Citibank, the mortgagor of the condominium unit, nor Parkchester, the manager of the condominium complex, owned or controlled the premises at issue, or assumed any duty to plaintiffs, such as might serve as a predicate for liability *(see Gibbs v Port Auth. of N.Y,*17 AD3d 252 [2005]). Furthermore, neither defendant had actual or constructive notice of the lead paint condition alleged to have caused injury *(see Chapman v Silber,*97 NY2d 9 [2001]).

Even assuming, arguendo, the applicability of Local Law No. 1 of 1982 to a condominium complex and to these defendants, the infant plaintiff did not reside in the condominium unit at issue, but instead lived in a unit distinct from that in which the lead paint condition was found. There is no evidence that any child under seven was a resident of the subject unit *(see*Housing Maintenance Code [Administrative Code of City of NY] for*800mer § 27-2013 [h], now §§ 27-2056.3, 27-2056.18). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.
----

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO**

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

| (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended                March 31, 2007 as filed on the date hereof with the Securities and                Exchange Commission (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/                Chang H. Ahn        |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Chang                H. Ahn            |   |
| Chief                Executive Officer |   |

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5.4. 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MAXON HARVEY MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-510)

September 4, 1998 B efore POLITZ, Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *


### Maxon Harvey Morgan appeals the ruling by the dist rict court finding the absence of excusable neglect for a late notice of appeal. Finding no basis for reversal, the said rulings are AFFIRMED. Motions DENIED.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-14-0100 - Final Rule: Revisions to Transportation Safety Requirements and Harmonization with International Atomic Energy Agency Transportation Requirements (RIN 3150-Ai11)

Accession Number: ML14237A375

Date Released: Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML14237A378 - SECY-14-0100 - Final Rule: Revisions to Transportation Safety Requirements and Harmonization with International Atomic Energy Agency Transportation Requirements (RIN 3150-AI11) (7 page(s), 9/24/2014)
    - ML14237A381 - SECY-14-0100 - Enclosue 1 - FRN: Final Rule: Revisions to Transportation Safety Requirements and Harmonization with International Atomic Energy Agency Transportion Requirements (RIN 3150-AI11) (103 page(s), 10/10/2014)
    - ML14237A383 - SECY-14-0100 - Enclosure 2 - Regulatory Analysis: Final Rule:  Revisions to Transportation Safety Requirements and Harmonization with International Atomic Energy Agency Transportation Requirements (RIN 3150-AI11) (22 page(s), 10/10/2014)
    - ML14237A384 - SECY-14-0100 - Enclosure 3 - Environmental Assesment: Final Rule:  Revisions to Transportation Safety Requirements and Harmonization with International Atomic Energy Agency Transportation Requirements (RIN 3150-AI11) (26 page(s), 10/10/2014)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
| USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS |
|----------------------------------|
| Open-File Report 03–037    |

|                                                                                                                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   About USGS /  Science Topics /  Maps, Products & Publications /  Education / FAQ |
|                                                                                                                                     |

## The New Albany Shale Petroleum System, Illinois Basin – Data and    Map Image Archive from the Material-Balance Assessment

#### D.K. Higley, M.E. Henry, M.D. Lewan, and J.K. Pitman

#### To start, click on highlighted text: Readme | Table      of Contents  | Data Files Readme | Glossary |

A text-only HTML (Web format) version    of this report is accessible, as defined in Section 508.

### 2003

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for      conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the      North American Stratigraphic    Code. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes    only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government  

| /www.usgs.gov/laws/accessibility.html"" class="footer" title="Accessibility Policy (Section 508)">AccessibilityFOIA/www.usgs.gov/laws/privacy.html"" class="footer"title="Privacy Policy and Disclaimers">Privacy/www.usgs.gov/laws/policies_notices.html"" class="footer" title="Policies and Important Notices of the USGS">Policies and Notices |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey      URL: <http://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/of/2003/ofr-03-037/>Contact: Energy Program InquiriesQuestions or Assistance: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Sat Jan 12 23:02 EDT 2013                                                                                             | /www.usa.gov/"" title="USAGov: Government Made Easy">  |

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4025

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus WARREN LEWIS ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-97-173) Submitted: September 13, 2006 Decided: October 12, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles H. Harp, II, HEDRICK, HARP & MICHAEL, Lexington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kearns Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Following a hearing at which Warren Lewis Alexander admitted to violating conditions of his supervised release, thedistrict court revoked Alexander’s release and imposed a thirtysix-month sentence. Alexander appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 367 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Alexander was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file such a brief. We affirm. As required by Anders , we have carefully reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no errors. We note that, while the sentence was substantially above the advisory guideline range of six to twelve months, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (1997), it was within the applicable statutory maximum of sixty months. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). Further, while the district court explicitly recognized the advisory guideline range, the court determined that a much longer sentence was in order because of Alexander’s history of repeatedly violating the terms of supervision and the need to set an example in an attempt to deter other supervisees from violating release terms. These are permissible considerations when imposing a supervised release revocation sentence. See18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2000). Moreover, Alexander does not contend that the court failed to consider any- 3 - pertinent § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release was not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 438-40 (4th Cir. 2006). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00339

- CR

Spergel Polk

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From 396th District Court

o f Tarrant County (1381679D )

May 12, 2016

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT C OURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

_______________ Justice Bonnie Sudderth
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 1, 2014.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D14-1023; 3D14-0627

Lower Tribunal No. 99-37608

________________



### Arthur W. Foley

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

Appeals under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo

, Judge.

Arthur W. Foley

, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.On May 5, 2014, in Case Number 3D14-1023, Arthur W. Foley, filed a

Notice of Appeal from the trial court’s April 17, 2014, “Order Recommending

Sanctions and Directions to the Clerk of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court,”

wherein the trial court recommended that Foley be sanctioned for abusing the

judicial process and directed the Clerk of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit not to

accept any further filings from Foley unless signed by an attorney duly licensed to

practice law in Florida.

On July 10, 2014, we consolidated Case Number 3D14-0627 1 with the

instant case, 3D14-1023, and ordered Foley to file his initial brief within twenty

days of the date of that order, i.e., by July 30, 2014, limited only to arguments

directed in Case Number 3D14-1023.

Having filed no initial brief by July 30, this court, on August 20, 2014,

ordered Foley to show cause within ten days why the appeal in Case Number

3D14-1023 should not be dismissed for failure to file an initial brief. To date,

Foley has not filed an initial brief.

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal in Case Number 3D14-1023. We further

allow Foley twenty days from the date of this opinion to respond to this court’s

1 Foley appealed the denial of the trial court’s February 27, 2014, order denying his

motion for postconviction relief. On May 28, 2014, this court affirmed the order

and simultaneously ordered Foley to show cause why he should not be prohibited

from filing further pro se pleadings relating to lower tribunal case number 99-

37608 lest he face sanctions. See Foley v. State

, 139 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA

2014).

2previous May 28, 2014, show cause order as to why he should not be prohibited

from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motion, or petitions relating to

lower tribunal number 99-37608. No further extensions shall be granted. 2

Appeal dismissed; show cause order issued.

2 In response to our initial show cause order in Foley

, 139 So. 3d at 456, Foley

urged us to provide him more time in which to respond to the order, contending he

had other pending appeals in this court. We implicitly granted Foley’s request by

consolidating the cases and affording him time to file an initial brief.

3
§ 2.51 Requests to reopen. ( a ) *Scope.* Any person, partnership, or corporation subject to a Commission decision containing a rule or order which has become effective, or an order to cease and desist which has become final, may file with the Secretary a request that the Commission reopen the proceeding to consider whether the rule or order, including any affirmative relief provision contained therein, should be altered, modified, or set aside in whole or in part.
( b ) *Contents.* A request under this section shall contain a satisfactory showing that changed conditions of law or fact require the rule or order to be altered, modified or set aside, in whole or in part, or that the public interest so requires. ( 1 ) This requirement shall not be deemed satisfied if a request is merely conclusory or otherwise fails to set forth by affidavit(s) specific facts demonstrating in detail: ( i ) The nature of the changed conditions and the reasons why they require the requested modifications of the rule or order; or
( ii ) The reasons why the public interest would be served by the modification.
( 2 ) Each affidavit shall set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence and shall show that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. All information and material that the requester wishes the Commission to consider shall be contained in the request at the time of filing.
( c ) *Opportunity for public comment.* A request under this section shall be placed on the public record except for material exempt from public disclosure under rule 4.10(a). Unless the Commission determines that earlier disposition is necessary, the request shall remain on the public record for thirty (30) days after a press release on the request is issued. Bureau Directors are authorized to publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the receipt of a request to reopen at their discretion. The public is invited to comment on the request while it is on the public record.
( d ) *Determination.* After the period for public comments on a request under this section has expired and no later than one hundred and twenty (120) days after the date of the filing of the request, the Commission shall determine whether the request complies with paragraph (b) of this section and whether the proceeding shall be reopened and the rule or order should be altered, modified, or set aside as requested. In doing so, the Commission may, in its discretion, issue an order reopening the proceeding and modifying the rule or order as requested, issue an order to show cause pursuant to § 3.72, or take such other action as is appropriate: *Provided, however,* That any action under § 3.72 or otherwise shall be concluded within the specified 120-day period.
(Sec. 6(g), 38 Stat. 721 (15 U.S.C. 46(g)); 80 Stat. 383, as amended, 81 Stat. 54 (5 U.S.C. 552))
[45 FR 36344, May 29, 1980, as amended at 46 FR 26291, May 12, 1981; 47 FR 33251, Aug. 2, 1982; 50 FR 53305, Dec. 31, 1985; 53 FR 40868, Oct. 19, 1988; 65 FR 50637, Aug. 21, 2000]
#### In the Matter of Anna D. Kilgus, Petitioner, against Board of Estimate of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

-Determination unanimously confirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Ho opinion. Present — -Callahan, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ. [See 283 App. Div. 696.]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T REY N A M A CI A S, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 70228 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 394- 965 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R e y naM a c i a s , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an 

# FI LED JU N 09 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS06- 70228 2 im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s r e m o v a l o r d e r . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e g r an t th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w an dr e m an df

o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s . T he B IA concl ud ed thatM ac i as ’ s c on vi ct i on for bei ng un der the i nfl uence of a c on trol l ed subst ance pu rs uantt o C al . H ea l th & S af ety C od e § 11 55 0 rendered h e rin e lig ib le f

o rr e lie f f r o m r e m o v a l. T h e B I A , h o w e v e r , d idn o t h a v e th e b e n e f it of ouri nt e rve ni ng de c i s i on i n R i ce v. H older , 59 7 F . 3d 95 2, 95 7 (9th C i r. 20 10 ), w hi c h he l d tha ta n i ndi vi dua l c onvi c t e d i n s t a t e c ourtof us i ng orbe i ng unde rthe in f lu e n c e o f ac o n tr o lle ds ub s tan c e a n dw h o s e c o n v ic tio n is s ub s e q u e n tly expu ng ed i s e l i gi bl e f

or the sam e i m m i grat i on tre atm entas i nd i vi du al s c on vi ct ed o f d ru g p o s s e s s io n u n d e rth e F e d e r a l F ir s t O f f e n d e rA c t. W e there fore re m and for the B IA t o rec on si der M ac i as ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f or re l i ef f r o m r e m o v a l. See g en era l l y IN S v. V en tu ra , 53 7 U . S . 12 , 16 -18 (20 02 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

KMART HOLDING CORPORATION

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION (1)

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kmart Holding
Corporation for the period ended April 28, 2004, each of the undersigned
officers of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:

     1.  this Form 10-Q 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 this Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Kmart Holding Corporation.


Date:    May 17, 2004




/s/ Julian C. Day
-----------------
Julian C. Day
Chief Executive Officer




/s/ James D. Donlon, III
------------------------
James D. Donlon, III
Chief Financial Officer












Footnote 1:

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