alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### New York City Transit Authority, Appellant, v. Jamaica Buses, Inc., Respondent.

In an action by an assignee of a contract to recover moneys claimed to be due and owing under the contract, plaintiff appeals, by permission of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, from its order dated June 29, 1961, which affirmed a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, First District, entered September 30, 1960, in favor of defendant, pursuant to an order of said Municipal Court, dated November 20, 1959, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or for alternative relief, and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment (20 Misc 2d 659). Order of Appellate Term affirmed, with costs. At the time of the making of the contract on September 22, 1933, plaintiff’s remote assignor had been operating a street surface railroad along Jamaica Avenue, west of 168th Street, in the Borough of Queens, City of New York. The defendant had been granted a franchise by the City of New York to operate omnibuses along certain streets in that borough, including part of this portion of Jamaica Avenue, and, in accordance with law, defendant had applied to the then extant Transit Commission of the State of New York for a certificate of convenience and necessity. The commission had scheduled a hearing on the application. Said assignor indicated that it would oppose the application, but it desisted because it entered into the contract in question with defendant. The contract provided that the assignor would not oppose the application and that defendant would pay the assignor 5 cents for each of its “local passengers” in the operation of its franchise. In our opinion the contract, being one to pay for another’s refraining from opposing a legal proceeding such as the one here, was against public policy and therefore is unenforcible (cf. *Atcheson*v. *Mallon,*43 N. Y. 147). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Order filed July 1, 2022. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00755-CV

____________

DONOVAN MITTELSTED, Appellant

V.

DENISE MCCLURE MERIWETHER AND DARLA MCCLURE SANDS, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR39333

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a final judgment in a probate proceeding following a 

jury trial. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.4(a), appellant 

Donovan Mittelsted has filed a motion requesting that this Court review and set aside

the trial court’s order permitting the dependent administrator of an estate to pay 

estate expenses from cash appellant deposited in the court’s registry to suspend 

enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. For reasons explained in a related 
2

opinion we issue today, we construe appellant’s motion as a petition for writ of 

mandamus, and we sever the petition from the above cause number and assign it a 

new cause number, 14-22-00480-CV 

The clerk of this court is directed to include in the new cause number 14-22-

00480-CV the following documents: 

1. Appellant’s Motion to Review Denial of Request for Supersedeas Bond, 

filed March 24, 2022;

2. Appellant’s Motion for Emergency Stay of Trial Court Proceedings, filed 

March 24, 2022;

3. This court’s March 25, 2022 order;

4. Appellees’ Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 

Appellant’s Motion for Emergency Stay of Trial Court Proceedings, filed 

March 30, 2022;

5. This court’s April 5, 2022 notice letter granting Appellees’ March 30, 2022 

Motion; 

6. Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Motion for Emergency Stay of Trial 

Court Proceedings, filed April 15, 2022;

7. Appellant’s Reply in Support of His Motion for Emergency Stay of Trial 

Court Proceedings, filed April 25, 2022; and

8. A copy of this order.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lovell MOSELEY, a/k/a Cheeks, a/k/a Charles Bimis, a/k/a Charles Cheeks, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6869.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2007.

Decided: May 1, 2007.

Charles Lovell Moseley, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Lovell Moseley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that rea*102sonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moseley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
#### § 92.89 Fees for service of legal process.

No charge should be made for serving a subpoena or order to show cause issuing out of Federal court under the procedures set forth in §§ 92.86 and 92.87. The taking of the affidavit of the officer effecting the service, or the performance of any other notarial act which may be involved in making the return, should be without charge, under the caption “Exemption for Federal Agencies and Corporations” of the Tariff of Fees, Foreign Service of the United States of America (§ 22.1 of this chapter).
JOIN

Provision Effective 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

1. Extension and modification of the Health Coverage

Tax Credit (sunset 12/31/19) [1].................................... cmba 12/31/13 --- -47 -45 -35 -35 -12 --- --- --

2. Child tax credit not refundable for taxpayers electing

to exclude foreign earned income [1]............................. tyba 12/31/14 --- 38 36 35 28 27 26 26 25 

3. Increase the amount of any required installment of

corporate estimated tax otherwise due in July, August,

and September 2020 by 2.75 percent for corporations

ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE REVENUE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAIRMAN'S MODIFICATION

Fiscal Years 2015 - 2025

[Millions of Dollars] 

 TO A PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND THE HEALTH COVERAGE TA

SCHEDULED FOR MARKUP BY THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON APRIL 22, 2015

and September 2020 by 2.75 percent for corporationswith assets of at least $1 billion..................................... DOE --- --- --- --- --- 1,980 -1,980 --- --

 NET TOTAL ....................................................................................... --- -9 -9 [2] -7 1,995 -1,954 26 25 Joint Committee on Taxation -------------------------------------- NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. The date of enactment is assumed to be July 1, 2015.Legend for "Effective" column: 

cmba = coverage months beginning afterDOE = date of enactmenttyba = taxable years beginning after

[1] Estimate includes the following outlay effects: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

Extension and modification of the Health Coverage Tax Credit.................. --- 5 20 28 28 7 --- --- --

Child tax credit not refundable for taxpayers electing to exclude foreign

earned income........................................................................... --- -38 -36 -35 -28 -27 -26 -26 -25 

[2] Negligible revenue effect.
#### § 505.6 Medical records.

If, in the judgment of the Agency, the release of medical information to you could have an adverse effect, the Agency will arrange an acceptable alternative to granting access of such records directly to you. This normally involves the release of the information to a doctor named by you. However, this special procedure provision does not in any way limit your absolute right to receive a complete copy of your medical record.
§ 103.204 HUD complaints and compliance reviews. ( a ) The Assistant Secretary may conduct an investigation and file a complaint under this subpart based on information that one or more discriminatory housing practices has occurred, or is about to occur.
( b ) HUD may also initiate compliance reviews under other appropriate civil rights authorities, such as E.O. 11063 on Equal Opportunity in Housing, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
( c ) HUD may also make the information you provide available to other Federal, State, or local agencies having an interest in the matter. In making such information available, HUD will take steps to protect the confidentiality of any informant or complainant when desired by the informant or complainant.
[64 FR 18541, Apr. 14, 1999]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn experimental investigation of propfan installations on an upswept supercritical wing at transonic Mach numbersAn investigation has been conducted in the Langley 16 Foot Transonic Tunnel to determine propfan installation and slipstream interference effects on an unswept supercritical wing. This data can be used for verification of existing and developing theoretical codes as well as giving an understanding of the flow interactions associated with propeller/nacelle/wing integration. The investigation was conducted over a Mach number range of 0.5 to 0.8 and at angles of attack from 0 deg to 3 deg. The propeller was powered by an air turbine simulator and the exhaust from the air turbine was used to simulate the exhaust from the propfan nacelle. Reynolds number based on wing chord varied from 3 to 4 million. Results indicate that the propfan causes an increase in the wing lift coefficient. It was found that most of the propeller induced swirl is recovered by the wing. The propeller slipstream also causes a large favorable leading edge suction peak on the upwash side and a smaller unfavorable decrease on the downwash side.Document ID19850022700Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsBartlett, G. R.*(Vigyan Research Associates, Inc. Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1985Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-172605NAS 1.26:172605Accession Number85N31013Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-17826PROJECT: RTOP 505-43-90-07Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850022700.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 94.1 Definitions. For purposes of this part— ( a ) *Convention* means the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Appendix B to Department of State notice, 51 FR 10498, March 26, 1986.
( b ) *Contracting State* means any country which is a party to the Convention.
( c ) *Child* and *children* mean persons under the age of sixteen.
### §300mm–42. Administrative arrangement authority

The WTC Program Administrator may enter into arrangements with other government agencies, insurance companies, or other third-party administrators to provide for timely and accurate processing of claims under sections 300mm–22, 300mm–23, 300mm–32, and 300mm–33 of this title.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXXIII, §3332, as added Pub. L. 111–347, title I, §101, Jan. 2, 2011, 124 Stat. 3656.)
### §7382d. Fellowship awards

#### (a) Fellowship recipient compensation

Each recipient of a fellowship under this subchapter shall be paid during the fellowship period at a rate of pay that shall not exceed the minimum annual rate payable for a position under GS–13 of the General Schedule.

#### (b) Local educational agency

The Secretary shall seek to ensure that no local educational agency penalizes a teacher who elects to participate in the Program.

(Pub. L. 103–382, title V, §516, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4044.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The General Schedule, referred to in subsec. (a), is set out under section 5332 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

** **

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code), I, John W. Elias, Chief Executive Officerof Edge Petroleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)           the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

| Dated:  August 6, 2009 |   | /s/ John W. Elias       |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                                  |   | John W. Elias           |
|                                  |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30244

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUSTIN E. CALLAHAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-69-B

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Justin E. Callahan, federal prisoner # 03245-095, is

currently serving a 180-month sentence for being a felon in

possession of a firearm. Callahan requests a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of

his motion to file an out-of-time 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 

Because Callahan’s motion did not request habeas relief, he need

not obtain a COA in order to proceed on appeal. Accordingly, his

request for COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.
No. 03-30244

-2-

Callahan’s motion to file an out-of-time 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion was not accompanied by a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on the

merits. We agree with the reasoning of United States v. Leon,

203 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2000), and conclude “that a federal court

lacks jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2255

[motion] until a [motion] is actually filed.” Id. at 163. 

Before the motion itself is filed, “there is no case or

controversy to be heard, and any opinion we were to render on the

timeliness issue would be merely advisory.” Id. Accordingly,

the district court’s denial of Callahan’s motion is AFFIRMED

because the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the

motion.

COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 710
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 710 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

§ 710.7 Time, date and place of hearing. The examiner shall establish a reasonable time, date and place to conduct the hearing. In establishing a date, the examiner shall give due regard to the former employee's need for: ( a ) Adequate time to prepare a defense properly; and
( b ) An expeditious resolution of allegations that may be damaging to the individual's reputation.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2099

In re: MAURICE GLENN , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ . ( 8:15

- cv - 03058

- PX )

Submitted : January 21, 2022 Decided: April 19, 2022

Before KING, DIAZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Maurice Glenn , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Maurice Glenn petitions for an extraordinary writ ; he seeks an investigation into alleged misconduct by judicial employees and review of Judicial Council orders denying Glenn’s complaints of judicial misconduct.

Our authority to issue extraordinary writs under t he All Writs Act “is only incidental to and in aid of [our] appellate jurisdiction, which Congress has given [Courts of Appeals] over district courts and administrative boards and agencies.” Gurley v. Super ior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty. , 411 F.2d 586, 587 ( 4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam) (citations omitted). The relief sought by Glenn is not available by way of extraordinary writ . Accordingly, we deny the petition. 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
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1006 CA 11-00388 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

JOHN TENCZA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ST. ELIZABETH MEDICAL CENTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GALE & DANCKS, LLC, SYRACUSE (CATHERINE A. GALE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BRINDISI, MURAD, BRINDISI, PEARLMAN, JULIAN & PERTZ, LLP, UTICA (STEPHANIE A. PALMER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Bernadette T. Clark, J.), entered July 6, 2010 in a medical malpractice action. The order, inter alia, directed defendant to pay plaintiff costs, disbursements and interest on a judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order in this medical malpractice action that, inter alia, denied its motion seeking to vacate a judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor pursuant to CPLR 5003-a and ordered defendant to pay costs, disbursements and interest on that judgment. We affirm. Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff satisfied his obligation pursuant to CPLR 5003-a by tendering a general release and stipulation of discontinuance to defendant’s attorney. The general release acknowledged the existence of a Medicare lien and provided “that a portion of the settlement will be paid to Medicare for [the] purpose[] of satisfying that lien.” The parties thereafter agreed that defendant was permitted to withhold only $50,000 of the settlement to satisfy the Medicare lien. “Neither CPLR 5003-a, nor the parties’ stipulation of settlement, imposed any additional requirement on the plaintiff or his attorney” ( Klee v Americas Best Bottling Co., Inc. , 76 AD3d 544, 546).

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 82 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document81 Filed05/02/10 Page1 of 2
Case3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document81 Filed05/02/10 Page2 of 2

May 3, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPROVED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 82 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                    (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,
                  CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,
Michael G. Long, Chief Financial Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

         (1)      the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three
                  months ended March 31, 2003 (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.




Dated: May 14, 2003                 /s/ Michael G. Long
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name: Michael G. Long
                                          Chief Financial and Accounting Officer




         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), in accordance with
the procedures provided for by the Securities and Exchange Commission in Release
No. 33-8212 for treatment as a document "accompanying" the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q to which it relates, and is not being filed as part of the Report or
as a separate disclosure document. This certificate shall not be deemed
incorporated by reference into any registration statement of the Company filed
under the Securities Act.

         A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has
been provided to Edge Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Edge
Petroleum Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
### §5915a. Expiration of initial authorization to construct fossil energy demonstration plants

Notwithstanding any other applicable provision of law, the initial authorization in this Act or any other Act heretofore or hereafter enacted to construct, pursuant to section 5907 of this title, any fossil energy demonstration plant shall expire at the end of the three full fiscal years following the date of enactment of such authorization, unless (1) funds to construct each such plant are appropriated or otherwise provided pursuant to applicable law prior thereto, or (2) such authorization period is extended by specific Act of Congress hereafter enacted.

(Pub. L. 95–39, title I, §105, June 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 184.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 95–39, June 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 180. The provisions of this Act relating to an initial authorization for construction pursuant to section 5907 of this title are not classified to the Code.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.