alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(February 23, 1979)

#### In the Matter of Frank L. De Joy et al., Petitioners, v Warren E. Zittell, as Columbia County Judge, et al., Respondents.

— By this article 78 proceeding, petitioners seek a judgment compelling the respondent County Court Judge to render a determination as to the legality of a search warrant issued by a Justice of the Supreme Court on or about December 8, 1976. Petitioners, whose indictments for various gambling offenses were then pending in County Court, moved under CPL article 710 to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant. This motion was denied by respondent on the ground that a County Court Judge lacks authority to review the legality of a determination made by a Justice of the Supreme Court. CPL 710.50 (subd 1, par [a]) expressly provides that a motion to suppress evidence must be made in the superior court in which the indictment is pending. It is therefore clear that in the instant case the County Court, as trial court, possessed jurisdiction to entertain and decide petitioners’ motion. Such jurisdiction would not be affected by the fact that the search warrant was issued by a Justice of the Supreme Court *(People v Fusco,*75 Mise 2d 981, 983; see, also, *People v Sossa,*77 Mise 2d 98; *People v Guenther,*77 Mise 2d *1077643). Petition granted, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 23

- 2508 LT Case No. 2023

- CA

- 002346

- A

_____________________________ C HARLES C ARTER , Appellant,

v.

P EYTON C. G RINNELL , A S S HERIFF O F L AKE C OUNTY F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County

. James R. Baxley , Judge

. Charles Carter, Tavares, pro se

.
No A ppearance for Appellee.

September 12, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. S ee F LA

. R. A PP

. P. 9.315( A ).

M AKAR , S OUD , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
#### Henry M. Padgett, Respondent, v. Chauncey A. Rogers et al., Appellants.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeals denied, on condition that the appeals be perfected and argued or submitted at the April Term (see Motion No. 152, *Padgett*v. *Rogers,*decided herewith). Motion by appellants to extend time to perfect appeals, granted on condition that they perfect the appeals and be ready to argue or submit them at the April Term, beginning March 27, 1961. The appeals are ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion by appellants to dispense with printing granted. The appeals will be heard on the original papers, including the typed minutes, and on appellants’ typewritten briefs. Appellants are directed, on or before March 3, 1961, to file six copies of their typewritten brief or briefs and to serve one copy on the respondent. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### Maurice B. Le Boeuf, as Administrator of the Estate of Peter C. Le Boeuf, Deceased, Respondent, v. John Newman et al., Doing Business as Linden House, Appellants. Stephen La Falce, an Infant, Mabel La Falce, by His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. John Newman et al., Doing Business as Linden House, Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Gibson, P. J.

Appeals from judgments entered upon verdicts in negligence actions brought to recover for personal injuries and for wrongful death. Appellants’ liability was clearly proven by ample evidence. We find no reason to disturb the verdicts in the La Falce action. The verdict of $55,000 in the Le Boeuf death action was excessive, however. Decedent, aged 17, was a junior in high school. He was described as a leader and as a hard worker, levelheaded and thrifty. He was an athlete and an Eagle scout. He had been employed at various jobs since he was *93812, and from the age of 15 had worked Summers at a fruit stand, at mowing lawns and at digging and selling bait; and during other vacations, on holidays and on week ends, at a ski center and as a restaurant or hotel bus boy, at which his earnings, without tips, amounted to $40 to $45 per week. On some occasions he gave to his mother his earnings, amounting, with his tips, to as much as $50 or $60 at a time; and in the Winter time, when his father did not work, he helped out with the household expenses, He bought his own clothing and put money away in a savings account against other needs and expenditures. His father’s and mother’s ages were 44 and 40, respectively, and their life expectancies 25.27 and 28.18 years, respectively. Decedent’s funeral expenses and medical and hospital expenses were approximately $2,000, It is not possible, in our view, to establish, upon this record, pecuniary loss exceeding $35,000 additional to the proven special damage. Judgment in the La Falce action affirmed, with costs to respondents. Judgment in the Le Boeuf action reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 20 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, respondent shall stipulate to reduce the verdict to $37,000 and interest, in which event judgment, as reduced, affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7789

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

IVORY RONZELL WILLIAMS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:06-cr-00209-REP-1; 3:12-cv-00051-REP)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivory Ronzell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, 

Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Michael C. Wallace, Sr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ivory Ronzell Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and the informal 

appellate brief and conclude that Williams 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 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Butler
Manufacturing Company Consolidated Statements of Operations for the quarter
ended June 30, 1999, and Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000015840
<NAME> BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          31,669
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     57,745
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               270,560
<PP&E>                                         240,425
<DEPRECIATION>                                 146,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 411,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          180,959
<BONDS>                                         62,293<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,623
<OTHER-SE>                                     182,373<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   411,576
<SALES>                                        452,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               452,189<F3>
<CGS>                                          373,727
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  373,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,513<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,247
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,652
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,595
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,595
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91
<FN>
<F1>Reflects long-term debt, less current maturities
<F2>Reflects other stockholders' equity before deduction of $47.4 million cost
of treasury stock
<F3>Reflects net sales plus net international joint venture income less net
other expense
<F4>Consists of selling, general and administrative expense
</FN>


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10072 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
IGNACIO GARCIA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 229

- 1

Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia h a s 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 fo r

* 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 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10072 Document: 00512870933 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2014No. 14

- 10072

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 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-10072 Document: 00512870933 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2014
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 September 6, 2006
    /s/ E. Bonnie SchaeferE. Bonnie SchaeferCo-Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 4.1


                               PROMISSORY NOTE



$110,000                                                       March 19, 2002


            FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Frank Archer (the "Maker"),
hereby promises to pay to the order of Niagara LaSalle Corporation (the
"Payee"), the principal amount of One Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars
($110,000), together with interest thereon as provided herein, payable at
such location and on such dates as are set forth below.

            Interest on the unpaid principal amount hereof shall accrue at
the rate of four and 32/100 percent (4.32%) per annum from and after the date
hereof. Interest shall be payable, with respect to any principal amounts paid
or prepaid, at the time of such payment or prepayment.

            The principal and interest on this Promissory Note are payable in
full on July 19, 2002, provided, however, that the Maker may, at any time,
prepay all or part of the unpaid principal amount hereof without premium or
penalty.

            Payments of principal and interest are to be made in lawful money
of the United States of America to 110 Hopkins Street, Buffalo, New York
14220 or as the Payee may designate in writing to the Maker.

            If any voluntary or involuntary proceeding shall be commenced
seeking to have an order for relief entered against the Maker as a debtor or
to adjudicate the Maker a bankrupt or insolvent, or seeking reorganization,
adjustment, liquidation, dissolution or composition of the Maker or the
Maker's debts under any law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization or relief of debtors, or seeking appointment of a receiver or
trustee for the Maker, and such proceeding shall remain undismissed and
unstayed for a period of sixty (60) days after the Maker has received notice
thereof, then the unpaid principal amount of this Promissory Note and all
interest accrued to such date shall become immediately due and payable
without the necessity of any presentment, demand, protest or any other notice
of any kind, all of which are hereby expressly waived by the Maker.

            This Promissory Note shall bind the Maker and his successors and
assigns and shall inure to the benefit of the Payee and its successors and
assigns.

            No delay, omission or waiver on the part of the Payee in
exercising any right hereunder shall operate as a waiver of such right or any
other right of the Payee at the same or at any prior or subsequent time.

            No amendment, modification or waiver of this Promissory Note, nor
consent to any departure therefrom, shall be effective unless in writing and
signed by the Payee.

            This Promissory Note shall be construed in accordance with and
governed by the laws of the State of New York without regard to its conflicts
of law principles.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Promissory Note has been duly executed
and delivered by the undersigned on the date first written above.



                                            /s/ Frank Archer
                                            ----------------------------
                                                Frank Archer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 907 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 907

To authorize the modification of the Second Division Memorial, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 7, 2017

 Ms. Murkowski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the modification of the Second Division Memorial, 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 ``Second Division Memorial 
Modification Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF THE SECOND DIVISION MEMORIAL.

    (a) Authorization.--The Second Indianhead Division Association, 
Inc., Scholarship and Memorials Foundation, an organization described 
in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
from taxation under section 501(a) of that Code, may place additional 
commemorative elements or engravings on the raised platform or stone 
work of the existing Second Division Memorial located in President's 
Park, between 17th Street Northwest and Constitution Avenue in the 
District of Columbia, to further honor the members of the Second 
Infantry Division who have given their lives in service to the United 
States.
    (b) Application of Commemorative Works Act.--Chapter 89 of title 
40, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Commemorative Works 
Act''), shall apply to the design and placement of the commemorative 
elements or engravings authorized under subsection (a).
    (c) Funding.--Federal funds may not be used for modifications of 
the Second Division Memorial authorized under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### County of Orange, Respondent, v. Maurice Phillips, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Motion by appellant for a stay, pending appeal, denied. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2210

___________________________

Cornelius Williams, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Corizon and/or Correctional Medical Services (CMS), et al.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________

 Submitted: March 6, 2018

 Filed: March 9, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Cornelius Williams appeals after the

district court dismissed his complaint, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute or 1

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.
otherwise comply with court orders. He challenges the dismissal and argues he

should have been appointed counsel.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this action

without prejudice. Williams’s failed to comply with court-ordered discovery

deadlines and failed to appear for his noticed deposition, ignoring the warning given

in the court’s scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), (d), 41(b); Lindstedt

v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000) (pro se litigant bound to meet

simple discovery requirements); Aziz v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1994)

(Rule 41(b) dismissal not an abuse of district court’s broad discretion to impose

sanctions after the court warned that dismissal would be consequence of party’s

discovery non-compliance); Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8thCir. 1983). 

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams

appointed counsel in this civil case. See Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791,

794 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
#### 1552.232-71--1552.232-73 [Reserved]
U.S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking

Student Loan Debt Relief

December 11-12, 2023

Links shared in the Zoom Chat during session 3

December 11, 2023, Day 1

Description Link Provided by 

Justice Department and 

Department of 

Education Announce 

Successful First Year of 

New Student-Loan 

Bankruptcy Discharge 

Process

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-anddepartment-education-announce-successful-first-yearnew-student-loanDepartment of 

Education

Office of Postsecondary 

Education; Notice of 

Negotiated Rulemaking 

for Programs Authorized 

Under Title IV of the 

Higher Education Act of 

1965, as Amended

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-12-

31/pdf/E8-31176.pdf

Department of 

Education

Federal Student Aid 

Submit a Complaint

https://studentaid.gov/feedback-center/ Department of 

Education

December 12, 2023, Day 2

Description Link Provided by 

New Student Loan 

Repayment Plan 

Benefits Borrowers 

Beyond Lower Monthly 

Payments

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/writtenmaterials/2023/08/22/new-student-loan-repayment-planbenefits-borrowers-beyond-lower-monthly-payments/

Jalil Bishop

All links included in this document are active as of 12/12/2023

By selecting the following link, you will be leaving the Department of Education’s (ED’s) website 

and navigating to a third-party site. This site and its contents are managed by organizations 

that may or may not have a business relationship with ED. As such, the Department is not 

responsible for the product, service, or overall website contents nor can it guarantee that any of 

the above are accessible in accordance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. If you 

need accessibility support, please reach out to the third-party vendor for assistance.