alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 82-CC-0222

#### Herbert Nance, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 8, 1987.*

Herbert D. Nance, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (William Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

*50Patchett, J.

This case comes on for hearing on a claim for damages regarding a stolen automobile. The Claimant claimed that his car was stolen the night of October 22, 1980, by two youths who escaped from the Dixon Springs Correctional Center. The youths were apprehended in Springfield, Illinois, and the Claimant’s car was found not far from the apartment where the boys were apprehended.

The Claimant sought damages in the sum of $717.66 for damages to his automobile. The amount of damages to his car was not seriously contested.

However, at the hearing held on July 14, 1982, the Claimant clearly failed to meet his burden of proof that the State was negligent. A long line of cases in this Court require that there be proof of the State’s negligence before an award can be made. The State is not an insurer, and there is no absolute liability in the case of escaped prisoners. See *American States v. State,*23 Ill. Ct. Cl. 47; *Voll v. State,*33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 201; and *Paulus v. State,*24 Ill. Ct. Cl. 215.

For the reasons stated above, we hereby deny this claim.
#### § 220.834 Registration of debentures.

Debentures shall be registered as to principal and interest.
### §436. Time when entry may be made generally

After June 25, 1910, no entry shall be made and no entryman shall be permitted to go upon lands reserved for irrigation purposes until the Secretary of the Interior shall have established the unit of acreage per entry, and water is ready to be delivered for the land in such unit or some part thereof and such fact has been announced by the Secretary of the Interior.

(June 25, 1910, ch. 407, §5, 36 Stat. 836; Feb. 18, 1911, ch. 111, 36 Stat. 918; Aug. 13, 1914, ch. 247, §10, 38 Stat. 689.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section comprises part of section 5 of act June 25, 1910, as amended by acts Feb. 18, 1911 and Aug. 13, 1914. Remainder of section 5 is set out as section 437 of this title.
NO. 12-10-00382-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

'

IN RE: BRUCE DARRELL WILLIAMS,

RELATOR ' ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

'

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

In this original mandamus proceeding, Relator Bruce Darrell Williams complains 

that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Relator’s motion for appointment of 

counsel to assist him in filing a motion for DNA testing. Relator contends that he met the 

statutory requirements for appointment of counsel, and therefore the trial court had no 

discretion to deny the motion.

In a criminal case, a relator is entitled to mandamus relief only if he establishes 

that (1) he has no other adequate legal remedy and (2) under the facts and the law, the act 

sought to be compelled is purely ministerial. See State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court of 

Appeals, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 

A “convicted person” seeking DNA testing is entitled to counsel if the convicting 

court finds that reasonable grounds exist for filing a motion for DNA testing and also 

finds that the convicted person is indigent. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(c) 

(Vernon Supp. 2010). Here, Relator filed a pro se motion for appointed counsel, and the 

State responded that Relator did not meet the requisite criteria. The trial court denied 

Relator’s motion without finding that reasonable grounds exist for Relator to file his 

DNA motion. Absent this finding, Relator cannot show that the action he seeks to 

compel is purely ministerial and therefore cannot show that he is entitled to mandamus. 

See Hill, 34 S.W.3d at 927. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is 

denied.

Opinion delivered December 8, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM BERGMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THELEN LLP,

Defendant. /

No. C-08-5322 MMC

ORDER OF REFERENCE TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UPON

CONSENT

All parties having consented to assignment of the above-titled matter to a United

States Magistrate Judge (see Doc. Nos. 13, 23, 81), the above-titled action is hereby

REFERRED to a magistrate judge for all further proceedings and entry of judgment. 

Appeal from the judgment shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05322-LB Document 82 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION






In connection
with the quarterly report of Roomlinx Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael S. Wasik, the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge, 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 the Company


Date:
10/15/08




By:
            /s/
            Michael
      S. WasikMichael
      S. WasikChief Executive
      Officer and Chief Financial OfficerRoomlinx,
    Inc.
Exhibit 10.9





Exhibit 10.9




Indemnification Agreements




The following current directors of NuPathe Inc. are each a party to an Indemnification Agreement
with NuPathe Inc. consistent in all material respects with the Form of Indemnification Agreement
which is filed as Exhibit 10.20 to Amendment No. 2 to NuPathe Inc.’s Registration Statement on Form
S-1 filed July 9, 2010.



Michael Cola

Jeanne Cunicelli

Michael C. Diem, MD

John H. Dillon, II

Jane H. Hollingsworth

Richard S. Kollender

Gary J. Kurtzman, MD

Robert P. Roche, Jr.

Wayne P. Yetter
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




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




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blackhawk Capital Group BDC,
      Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig
      A.
      Zabala, as acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereto certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities 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.






Date:  April
      13,
      2006








/s/
      Craig A. Zabala


Craig
      A.
      Zabala


Acting
      Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      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 Blackhawk Capital Group BDC and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 232.585 Prepayment privilege and prepayment charge.

The security instrument shall contain a provision permitting prepayment of the loan in whole or in part upon any interest payment date after giving to the lender 30 days' advance written notice and it may contain a provision, with the approval of the Commissioner, for a reasonable charge in the event of prepayment.
### §390f. Revision of leases or agreements to evidence conversion of rights to use of storage rights

Upon application of any affected local interest its existing lease or agreement with the Government will be revised to evidence the conversion of its rights to the use of the storage as prescribed in sections 390c to 390f of this title.

(Pub. L. 88–140, §4, Oct. 16, 1963, 77 Stat. 250.)
#### PLUMMER, Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL POWER CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Action by John F. Plummer against the International Power Company. P. G. Bartlett, for appellant. J. R. Dos Passes, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gloria Knight, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered June 14, 1977, affirmed. No opinion. This case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Gulotta, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 289 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 289

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, as the 
      ``Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 289

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, as the 
      ``Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8200 
South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant First Class John 
Marshall Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 1, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### §261. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787

Section, acts Sept. 30, 1890, No. 59, 26 Stat. 684; Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100, related to time for payments and extension of time.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787, provided that the repeal made by section 702 is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976, except such effective date to be on and after tenth anniversary of date of approval of this Act, Oct. 21, 1976, insofar as homestead laws apply to public lands in Alaska.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Gordon Shoecraft, Respondent, v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by two employers and carriers from an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board assessed equally against them for reduced earnings. The sole contention of appellants is that the board erroneously excluded commissions from renewal premiums received by claimant, an insurance salesman, during the period of the award, in determining that he had reduced earnings. If the commissions received by claimant on renewal premiums are considered as current earnings as of the time received, claimant would have had no reduced earnings, and hence there would be no basis for an award. The board has considered these renewal commissions as relating back to the original policies, and has declined to consider such commissions as earnings during the award period. The record is clear that if, upon renewal of a policy, any change or alteration of the original policy was requested, it was claimant’s duty to service the policy by interviewing the policyholder and making the requested changes. The record is not clear as to just how frequently such servicing of renewal policies was required of claimant. However, we do not think that the actual quantum of work done by claimant in servicing renewal policies is controlling. Claimant had a contract with the insurance agency which employed him providing, in part: “ On renewal premiums on policies written by second party [claimant] and collected by him or by the first party while this contract is in force second party will be entitled to a service fee of 5% for servicing such policies.” It is not realistic to regard these renewal commissions as gratuities relating back to the original policies because the parties have bargained for and agreed upon claimant’s compensation for his services, which by the terms of the agreement was to include commissions upon renewal premiums payable at the time of renewal. Consequently, by agreement they were current earnings as of the time received, and should have been so considered in reaching a determination *554as to claimant’s reduced earnings, if any. Respondent’s contention that this appeal is not proper and that the abandonment of an earlier appeal renders the previous decision of the board final, is without merit. Following the abandonment of the previous appeal new evidence was taken and a new award made. This appeal, taken from the last and final determination of the board, is properly taken. Award reversed and the claim dismissed, with one bill of costs against the Workmen’s Compensation Board to be divided between the appellants.
#### H. J. Tatro, appellee, v. Clarence B. Craig, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,153.

Action of forcible detainer. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Bernard P. Barasa, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Reversed.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

J. K. McMahon, for appellant. Leonora Z. Meder and James V. Cunningham, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §375c. Sales of small tracts to resident farm owners and entrymen; price; terms; acreage purchasable

The Secretary is authorized to sell such land to resident farm owners or resident entrymen, on the project upon which such land is located, at prices not less than that fixed by independent appraisal approved by the Secretary, and upon such terms and at private sale or at public auction as he may prescribe: Provided, That such resident farm landowner or resident entryman shall be permitted to purchase under sections 375b to 375f of this title not more than one hundred and sixty acres of such land, or an area which, together with land already owned or entered on such project shall not exceed one hundred and sixty irrigable acres.

(Mar. 31, 1950, ch. 78, §2, 64 Stat. 39.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Karen Fotiou, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 319]—

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), both rendered September 29, 2004, convicting her of grand larceny in the third degree (four counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (four counts), scheme to defraud in the first degree, falsifying business records in the first degree (two counts), and practicing or appearing as an attorney-at-law without being admitted and registered under indictment No. 3158/02, and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree under indictment No. 1635/03, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the *Sandoval*ruling *(see People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is without merit. The court providently exercised its discretion in permitting inquiry into two of the defendant’s three prior convictions, and in allowing questioning as to the underlying facts of one of those two convictions (s*ee People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203, 207 [2002]; *People v Williams,*24 AD3d 882, 883 [2005]; *People v Hallingquest,*295 AD2d 364 [2002]). The court struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior convictions on the issue of her credibility and the possible prejudice to her *(see People v Lewis,*31 AD3d 788, 789 [2006]; *People v Celleri,*
      *87829 AD3d 707 [2006]). The mere fact that the prior convictions into which inquiry was permitted was similar or even identical in nature to the instant offenses did not warrant their preclusion *(see People v Dahlbender,*23 AD3d 493, 494 [2005]; *People v Pender,*221 AD2d 573 [1995]; *People v Torres,*110 AD2d 794, 795 [1985]), and the defendant is not shielded from impeachment because she specializes in one type of criminal activity *(see People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]; *People v Louisias,*29 AD3d 1017, 1020 [2006]; *People v Malave,*288 AD2d 237 [2001]). The prior offenses bore directly upon the defendant’s veracity and willingness to place her interests above those of society *(see People v McLaurin,*33 AD3d 819 [2006]; *People v Quiller,*298 AD2d 712, 713 [2002]). Finally, the fact that some of the convictions were about 10 to 20 years old does not, in and of itself, require preclusion of those convictions for impeachment purposes *(see People v Myron,*28 AD3d 681, 683 [2006]; *People v Washington,*240 AD2d 521, 522 [1997]; *People v Smilovich,*157 AD2d 809, 810 [1990]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

APPROXIMATELY $8,800 IN AMERICAN

EXPRESS TRAVELERS CHECKS, AND

ONE PENTAD 35mm CAMERA, SERIAL

NUMBER 1318242,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-02308 WHA

ORDER CONTINUING STAY

After a case management conference, the Court enters the following order pursuant to

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and Civil Local Rule 16-10:

1. This case will be STAYED yet again until at least AUGUST 26, 2010, AT 11:00 A.M., at

which time another case management conference will be held. Please file a joint case

management statement at least seven days prior.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02308-WHA Document 20 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 1
### §2701. Control of noxious plants on Federal lands; State programs; terms of entry

The heads of Federal departments or agencies are authorized and directed to permit the commissioner of agriculture or other proper agency head of any State in which there is in effect a program for the control of noxious plants to enter upon any lands under their control or jurisdiction and destroy noxious plants growing on such land if—

(1) such entry is in accordance with a program submitted to and approved by such department or agency: Provided, That no entry shall occur when the head of such Federal department or agency, or his designee, shall have certified that entry is inconsistent with national security;

(2) the means by which noxious plants are destroyed are acceptable to the head of such department or agency; and

(3) the same procedure required by the State program with respect to privately owned land has been followed.

(Pub. L. 90–583, §1, Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1146.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1241 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
§ 140.14 Special procedures for U.S. entities and individuals. ( a ) If the Country Narcotics Coordinator makes a preliminary decision that evidence exists to justify withholding, suspending, or terminating assistance to a U.S. entity, U.S. citizen, or permanent U.S. resident, the matter shall be referred immediately to the Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs for appropriate action, to be taken in consultation with the agency proposing the assistance and the agency or agencies that provided information reviewed or relied upon in making the preliminary decision.
( b ) If a determination is made that assistance is to be withheld, suspended, or terminated under this part, the Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, or the Assistant Secretary's designee, shall notify the affected U.S. entity, U.S. citizen, or permanent U.S. resident and provide such entity or individual with an opportunity to respond before action is taken. In no event, shall this part be interpreted to create a right to classified information or law enforcement investigatory information by such entity or individual.
### §8262e. Federal energy cost accounting and management

#### (a) Guidelines

Not later than 120 days after October 24, 1992, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in cooperation with the Secretary, the Administrator of General Services, and the Secretary of Defense, shall establish guidelines to be employed by each Federal agency to assess accurate energy consumption for all buildings or facilities which the agency owns, operates, manages or leases, where the Government pays utilities separate from the lease and the Government operates the leased space. Such guidelines are to be used in reports required under section 8258 of this title. Each agency shall implement such guidelines no later than 120 days after their establishment. Each facility energy manager shall maintain energy consumption and energy cost records for review by the Inspector General, the Congress, and the general public.

#### (b) Contents of guidelines

Such guidelines shall include the establishment of a monitoring system to determine—

(1) which facilities are the most costly to operate when measured on an energy consumption per square foot basis or other relevant analytical basis;

(2) unusual or abnormal changes in energy consumption; and

(3) the accuracy of utility charges for electric and gas consumption.

#### (c) Federally leased space energy reporting requirement

The Administrator of General Services shall include, in each report submitted under section 8262a of this title, the estimated energy cost of leased buildings or space in which the Federal Government does not directly pay the utility bills.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title I, §159, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2857.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and not as part of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act which comprises this chapter.