alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00333-CR

NO. 02-11-00334-CR

NO. 02-11-00335-CR

EX PARTE KENT ALTONIO 

ROGERS

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Kent Altonio Rogers attempts to appeal from the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals’s denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. On August 

15, 2011, we notified Rogers of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over these 

appeals because this court has no jurisdiction to review decisions of the court of 

criminal appeals,

2

and we informed him that these appeals were subject to 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(a) (West Supp. 2010) 

(stating that “[a]fter final conviction in any felony case, the writ must be made 
2

dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue these

appeals filed a response with this court by August 25, 2011, showing grounds for 

continuing the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Rogers filed a response, but 

it does not show grounds for continuing the appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss 

these appeals for want of jurisdiction.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: September 22, 2011

 

returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas at Austin, Texas”); accord

Tex. Const. art. V, § 5 (providing that court of criminal appeals has final appellate 

jurisdiction on all questions of law in criminal matters).

3

To the extent that Rogers’s response may be construed as a motion, it is 

denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Wendle Murphy, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 12 C 3007 

 ) 

CIGPF I Corp., a New York corporation, ) Judge Chang 

American Coradius International, LLC, a ) 

Delaware limited liability company, and ) 

Client Services, Inc., a Missouri ) 

corporation. ) 

 Defendants. ) 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

The parties, having reached a settlement of Plaintiff’s claims against the 

Defendants, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice, each party to 

bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Dated: June 12, 2012 

/s/ David J. Philipps_______ /s/ Nicole Barrett _______

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys One of Defendants CIGPFI’s and ACI’s 

Attorneys 

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285) Nicole Barrett (Ill. Bar No. 6289012) 

Mary E. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06197113) Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LP

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd. 55 West Monroe 

9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Suite 1120 

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465 Chicago, Illinois 60603 

 /s/ Matthew J. Aplington 

 One of Defendant Client Services, Inc.’s 

 Attorneys 

 

 Matthew J. Aplington (Ill. Bar No. 6294199) 

 The Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC 

 222 S. Central Avenue 

 Suite 901 

 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 

Case: 1:12-cv-03007 Document #: 12 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:45
2

 

The foregoing stipulation is hereby approved and this action is dismissed with 

prejudice, each party to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Dated: ______________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 Judge Edmond E. Chang, 

 United States District Court 

Case: 1:12-cv-03007 Document #: 12 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:46
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 12, 2012, a copy of the foregoing Stipulation of 

Dismissal was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following 

parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this 

filing through the Court’s system. 

Nicole Barrett nbarrett@sessions-law.biz 

Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLP 

55 West Monroe 

Suite 1120 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Matthew J. Aplington maplington@lowenbaumlaw.com 

The Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC 

222 S. Central Avenue 

Suite 901 

St. Louis, Missouri 36105 

/s/ David J. Philipps__________

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285) 

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd. 

9760 South Roberts Road 

Suite One 

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465 

(708) 974-2900 

(708) 974-2907 (FAX) 

davephilipps@aol.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-03007 Document #: 12 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:47
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

February 23, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING US. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Re: Air Caledonie International S.A. Passenger Manifest Regulation Docket 081'-1998-3305 Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to the U.S. Department ofTransportation's Passenger Manifest Regulation, 14 C.F.R. Part 243, Air Caledonie International S.A. (Airealin) states the lollowing:

• Airealin does not currently operate any covered Hight segments under the statute, and sen'es the U.S. solely under acodeshare agreement with Air Tahiti Nui. 

### Ifand when Aircalin begins operating transpacific flights to or from the U.S., itwill manually collect passenger information for all U.8. citizens atthe time ofboarding;

• Record and maintain arecord ofthe full name and passport number ofU.S. citizen passengers;

• Request the name and telephone number of a contact person for each U.S. citizen passenger; and



### • Inthe event of an aviation disaster, Aircalin will transmit the passenger information to the U.S. Department of State via facsimile and to the NTSB asrequired.

• The name(s) and telephone nunlber(s) ofaperson orpersons who are available at any time acovered flight segment is operated and who can be consulted regarding the collection ofthis information will be provided ifand when Aircalin begins to operate such covered flight segments.

# <R~:>

__ Evelyn D. SaIlr Drew M. Derco Counsel for Air Caledonie International S.A.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated December 14, 2001, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Alpha Technologies Group,
Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended October 26, 2003. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
Alpha Technologies Group, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-11627, effective
January 29, 1987, File No. 33-17359, effective September 28, 1987, File No.
33-20706, effective March 17, 1988, File No. 33-29636, effective June 30, 1989,
File No. 33-48663, effective June 23, 1992, File No. 333-03001, effective April
30, 1996, File No. 333-61708, effective May 25, 2001 and File No. 333-103132,
effective February 12, 2003) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-10311, effective
August 16, 1996).



/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Houston, Texas
January 9, 2004
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Maxtor Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 27, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul J. Tufano,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ Paul J. Tufano
                                          ------------------------------
                                          Paul J. Tufano
                                          PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                                          OFFICER

Date: March 11, 2004

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 THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED
BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS
STAFF UPON REQUEST.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1651

MARQUEL ALI , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. RALEIGH COUNTY; STEVEN TANNER, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Raleigh County; CITY OF BECKLEY; GARY EPLING, individually and in his official capacity as detective with the Raleigh County Sheriff ’ s Department; DAVID SNUFFER, individually and in his official capacity as officer with the Beckley Police Department; KENNETH L. PACK, individually and in his official capacity as Corporal with the West Virginia State Police; JASON REDDEN, individually and in his official capacity as officer with the West Virginia Division of Corrections and subsequently Raleigh County Sheriff ’ s Department , Defen dants

- Appellees,

a nd
RALEIGH COUNTY SHERIFF ’ S DEPARTMENT; BECKLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT; WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Beckley

. Irene C. Berger , District Judge. ( 5:17

- cv
- 03386 )

Submitted : May 11, 2020 Decided: July 31, 20202 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RICHARDSON , Circuit Judge , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Hoyt Glazer , LAW OFFICE OF HOYT GLAZER, PLLC , Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Victor Flanagan , Kevin John Robinson , Jared Coy Underwood , Chip Edward Williams , PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC , Beckley, West Virginia; Michael Deering Mullins , Robert L. Bailey , STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC , Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Marquel Ali appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants on Ali’s claims that he was wrongfully arrested as a result of an improper investigation and prosecution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018), and related state law claims of abuse of process, malicious prosecut ion, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ali also appeals the court ’s order denying leave to file a second amended complaint. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find n o reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ali v. Raleigh Cty

. , No. 5:17

- cv
- 03386 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 14,
2018 & May 15, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequa tely presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### Spence, administrator, *v.*Queen.

March 1, 1913.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Brand. Walton superior court. January 19, 1912.

*Napier & Cox,*for plaintiff in error.

*Coll & Erwin*and *Walker & Bolerts,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. Under tlie allegations and prayers of the petition, the overruling of the demurrer was not error.

2. But, under the evidence, the finding of a certain sum of money in favor of the plaintiff was contrary to law and unsupported by the evidence, as against a plea of the statute of limitations.

*'(a)*The plaintiff claimed as a legatee under the will of her father, which was probated in 1865, and showed on its face that the testator left a tract of land, which was to be divided among his children (his wife having died before him). The plaintiff became of age in 1883, and did not bring the present action until 1910. It was brought against the legal representative of her uncle, who had qualified as executor of her father in 1865, and who had died some two years before the suit was brought. As originally brought, the suit claimed an interest in the land, and also sought to recover on account of rents alleged to have been received by the executor of the plaintiff’s father, and an investment of the funds alleged to belong to the estate. As amended, a recovery was prayed for the value of the interest which she claimed in the land alleged to have been left by her father at his death, and its rents and profits, and also for the value of the interest claimed by her in a tract of land alleged to have been partly bought with funds of the estate in 1871. A verdict was rendered in her favor for a fixed amount of money. The facts on which the plaintiff relied to prevent a bar of the statute of limitations did not bring the case within the. rulings in *Wellborn*v. Rogers, 24 *Ga.*558, *Hoyle*v. *Jones,*35 *Ga.*40 (89 Am. D. 273), *Kirkley*v. *Sharp,*98 *Ga.*484 (25 S. E. 562), or *Short*v. *Mathis,*107 *Ga.*807 (33 S. E. 694). But uneontradicted evidence brings it within the principle of the rulings in *Bennett*v. *Bird,*139 *Ga.*25 (76 S. E. 568); *Edmonds*v. *Goodwyn,*28 *Ga.*38; *Sutton*v. *Dye,*60 *Ga.*449; *Marler*v. *Simmons,*81 *Ga.*611 (8 S. E. 190); *Lane*v. *Lane,*87 *Ga.*268 (13 S. E. 335); *Teasley*v. *Bradley,*110 *Ga.*497 (35 S. E. 782, 78 Am. St. R. 113); *Crawford*v. *Crawford,*134 *Ga.*114 (67 S. E. 673, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 353, 19 Ann. Cas. 932).

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

South Dakota Department of Education800 Governors DrivePierre, SD 57501-2291Phone: (605) 773-3455 Website: http://doe.sd.gov/

### State Higher Education Agency

South Dakota Board of RegentsSuite 200306 East Capitol AvenuePierre, SD 57501-2545Phone: (605) 773-3455 Website: http://www.sdbor.edu/

### Special Education Agency

Special Education ProgramsSouth Dakota State Department of EducationSuite 200306 East Capitol AvenuePierre, SD 57501-2545Phone: (605) 773-3678 br>Fax: (605) 773-5320Website: http://doe.sd.gov/sped/

### State Adult Education Agency

South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation811 East 10th Street, Department 41Souix Falls, SD 57103Phone: (605) 367-5300Fax: (605) 367-5308Website: https://dlr.sd.gov/workforce_services/individuals/adult_education.aspx

Back to state map
Case: 1:12-cv-02791 Document #: 32 Filed: 06/05/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:108
Case: 1:12-cv-02791 Document #: 32 Filed: 06/05/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:109
Case: 1:12-cv-02791 Document #: 32 Filed: 06/05/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:110
Case: 1:12-cv-02791 Document #: 32 Filed: 06/05/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:111
Case: 1:12-cv-02791 Document #: 32 Filed: 06/05/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:112
Case: 1:12-cv-02791 Document #: 32 Filed: 06/05/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:113
#### 1832.111-70 NASA contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.232-79, Payment for On-Site Preparatory Costs, in solicitations and contracts for construction on a fixed-price basis when progress payments are contemplated and pro rata payment of on-site preparatory costs to the contractor is appropriate.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 8 -00 628 -CV

William “Bill” Moriart y; Mor iarty & A ssociates, LLC; Diane Hyatt ;

and Dian e Hyatt & Associate s , Appellan ts

v. CH2M Hill, In c.; and Ke n Hall , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-08– 2524 , HO NORAB LE SCO TT H. JENK INS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nts Willi a m “ B ill ” Mo ri art y ; Mo ri art y & A sso c iate s, L L C; D iane Hya tt;
and Di ane Hya tt & As so c iate s h a ve fi le d App e lla nts ’ U no pp os e d Mo ti on to Tr ans fe r R e c or d to Appea l No. 03-08-00665- CV and Dism iss Appea l No. 03-08-00628-CV. Appellants re prese nt that the y have se ttl e d th e ir

dif fe re nc e s wi th a

pp e lle e s in thi s a

pp e a l, and that ne ith e r t

he a pp e lle e s in

thi s appea l nor the appe llees in ca use number 03- 08-00665-CV oppose the transfe r of the r ecor d. We gr ant the motion. The recor d in this appea l is transfe rre d to cause number 03-08- 00665-CV. This appea l is dism issed. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion Filed: May

22, 2009
#### 1427.201-2 Contract clauses.

Approval to exempt specific United States patents from the patent indemnity clause shall be obtained from the CCO with legal review and concurrence.
Order entered February 21, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 00287
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 00288
- CR SCHULZ, TOM ALVIN, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F10
- 00500
- J , F11
- 00343
- J 

### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES the appeals. On September 19, 2012, we ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the proper amount of restitution. We ADOPT the finding that the parti es have reached an agreement regarding the amount of restitution.
We ORDER the trial court to file a supplemental record, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order, that contains an order modifying the conditions of community supervision setting out t he amount of restitution as agreed by the parties

/s/ MARY MURPHY JUSTICE
#### Tri-Global Management Corp., Respondent, v Citibank, N.A., Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 233]

In an action to recover damages for violating a restraining notice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated January 9, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*628Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated a restraining notice the plaintiff served upon the defendant pursuant to CPLR 5222 as part of the plaintiffs ongoing efforts to enforce a judgment it obtained against a nonparty. The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and in denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the account the plaintiff sought to restrain was not included in a proper restraining notice issued pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 5222. Thus, the defendant had no obligation to freeze the account *(see*CPLR 5222 [b]; *Tri-Global Mgt. Corp. v Richardson,*25 AD3d 600, 601 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P, Spolzino, Florio and Skelos, JJ., concur.
M. P. No. 74-337.

#### In re Joseph Francis Walsh.

*Joseph Francis Walsh,*petitioner, pro se. *Julius C.*
      *928
      *Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Judith Romney Wegner,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for respondent.

*927Pro se petition of Joseph Francis Walsh for an extraordinary writ denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Michael H. Goldberg

Michael H. GoldbergPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 5, 2010/s/ Scott F. StephensScott F. StephensVice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 5, 2010
   E-18
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Isidore Wetchler, Appellant, v. Camel Lead, Color and Chemical Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Claimant appeals from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board holding that he did not sustain an industrial accident in the course of his employment. Claimant was the president and executive technical director of the corporate employer. On January 23, 1956 the employer filed a report of accident alleged to be a back injury sustained on November 4, 1955. Claimant prepared and signed this report as president. Claimant filed a claim on February 9, 1956. He alleges that he injured his back on November 4, 1955 while attempting to turn a valve. There is evidence of medical treatment for a back condition prior to the date of the alleged accident. The record presents a sharp question of credibility with conflicting evidence. Only a question of credibility and a question of fact are involved, and the hoard’s determination thereof is final. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BOTH
THE DECEMBER 31, 1996 BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSES
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000711512
<NAME> AMERICAN REPUBLIC REALTY FUND I
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          23,211
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      16,817,227
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,397,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,645,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      7,239,679
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,975,250)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,645,383
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,419,780
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,897,801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             302,703
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   257,948
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    23.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>