alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-21-00192-CR 

________________________

EX PARTE WILLIAM DONALD STANLEY 

 

 

On Appeal from the 31st District Court 

Gray County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 11377; Honorable Phil N. Vanderpool, Presiding 

 

January 24, 2022 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, William Donald Stanley, appeals from the trial court’s Order on Motion 

to Set Reasonable Bond. Pending before this court is Appellant’s motion to voluntarily 

dismiss the appeal. As required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), the motion to 

dismiss is signed by Appellant and his attorney. As no decision of the court has been 

delivered, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will 

be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
#### Joseph Lowenstein, plaintiff in error, v. Schiff Trust and Savings Bank, defendant in error.

Gen. No. 37,313.

Opinion filed October 16, 1934.

Nat M. Kahn, for plaintiff in error. Kirkland, Fleming, Green &. Martin, for defendant in error; Vernon M. Welsh and David Fisher, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### In the Matter of Lori Tremblay, Appellant, v Board of Education of the Westbury Union Free School District, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent, *inter alia,*to reinstate petitioner to the position of teacher, *nunc pro tunc,*with back pay, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 4, 1979, which dismissed the petition. Judgment, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Petitioner, a tenured elementary school teacher, was excessed from her position on June 30, 1978 and put on the preferred list. On September 11, 1978 petitioner resumed work as a substitute until September 20, 1978, when she was reinstated as a regular teacher. Respondent has since retroactively restored to petitioner her permanent salary, seniority and other accrued emoluments for the period petitioner served as a substitute. Petitioner, however, claims she is entitled to back pay and accrued seniority from September 1, 1978, the time the position allegedly became vacant, to September 11, 1978. During this period, the class to which petitioner was eventually assigned was covered by the rescheduling of existing personnel. Subdivision 3 of section 2510 of the Education Law does not require recall to a vacancy as soon as it occurs. While the board of a union free school district may not make a temporary appointment to fill a permanent vacancy (see *Serritella v Board of Educ.,*58 AD2d 645, mot for lv to app den 43 NY2d 642), it does have the power, under subdivision 16 of section 1709 of the Education Law, to determine when a vacancy exists (see *Matter of Halladay,*69 St Dept Rep 5). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr126LAC

MICHAEL A. BLANKENSHIP

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on September 13 , 2006

Motion/Pleadings OMNIBUS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM OPERATION OF

ORDER/JUDGMENT DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION UNDER TITLE 28 U.S.C. ,

SECTION 2255, PURSUANT TO RULES 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6), FED.R.CIV.P 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on 8/28/2006 Doc.# 241

RESPONSES:

GOVERNMENT on 11/11/2006 Doc.# 242

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 14th day of

November, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) Defendant’s Motion is an attempt to relitigate the applicability of Apprendi

to his case. In his initial Section 2255 petition he raised the very issue that

is the subject of this motion (doc 120 at 8-14). The Court found in denying the

2255 motion that even if there was an Apprendi error, any such error was harmless

(doc 163 at 10-11). The instant motion, no matter how defendant titles it, is

in fact a disguised successive 2255 motion. This Court, therefore, lacks

jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion. 

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

Entered On Docket: By: Senior United States District Judge

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:98-cr-00126-LC-MD Document 243 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.11

                  Description of Arrangement for Directors Fees

The following sets forth the amount of annual fees payable (excluding
representation expenses) to each non-employee director of W Holding Company,
Inc. (except for directors who receive benefits from any retirement plan), for
their services as Directors in fiscal year 2005 (year-end 2004 figures were
included for comparative purposes):

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
            Event                               2005 Fees                 2004 Fees
            -----                               ---------                 ---------
<S>                                    <C>                          <C>
Annual Retainer:

For those Directors with               $24,000 annually, payable    $24,000 annually, payable
   participation in less than three     on a monthly basis          on a monthly basis
   Board of Directors committees.      ($2,000).                    ($2,000).

For those Directors with               $42,000 annually, payable    $24,000 annually, payable
   participation in more than three    on a monthly basis           on a monthly basis
   Board of Directors committees.      ($3,500).                    ($2,000).

Secretary of the Board of              $18,000 annually, payable    $18,000 annually, payable
   Directors                           on a monthly basis           on a monthly basis
                                       ($1,500) for being a         ($1,500) for being a
                                       director of the Board of     director of the Board of
                                       Directors. Also, the         Directors. Also, the
                                       Secretary of the Board of    Secretary of the Board of
                                       Directors receives an        Directors receives an
                                       additional retainer of       additional retainer of
                                       $6,720 annually, payable     $6,720 annually, payable
                                       on a monthly basis ($560)    on a monthly basis ($560)
                                       for his (her) position as    for his (her) position as
                                       Secretary of the Board.      Secretary of the Board.


Chairman of the Audit Committee        $36,000 annually, payable    None
   and Financial Expert                on a monthly basis
                                       ($3,000).
</TABLE>

W Holding Company, Inc. may also reimburse Directors for their out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in connection with attendance at meetings of and other
activities relating to service on the Board of Directors or any Board of
Directors committee.
Case 3:95-cr-03039-RV-MD   Document 384   Filed 08/27/07   Page 1 of 1
§ 22.102 Summary of authorities. The purpose of this section is to give notice that certain authorities have been delegated by the Secretary of USDA agencies for implementation. New Secretarial delegations covering the Rural Development Act were effective May 31, 1973, and were published in the Federal Register June 7, 1973 (38 FR 14944-14953). These are as follows: ( a ) Title I (38 FR 14948). Responsibility delegated to theAssistant Secretary for Rural Development. The responsibility for administering loan and grant authorities is redelegated to the Farmers Home Administration, except the responsibility for administering loan authorities with respect to rural electrification and telephone facilities and service which has been redelegated to the Rural Electrification Administration.
( b ) Titles II (38 FR 14945-14948), III (38 FR 14945-14948), and V (38 FR 14945-14948. Responsibility delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Conservation, Research and Education and redelegated as follows: ( 1 ) Titles II (38 FR 14951-14952) and III (38 FR 14951-14952) to the Administrator, Soil Conservation Service.
( 2 ) Title V (38 FR 14949-14950) to the Administrators, Cooperative State Research Service and the Extension Service respectively.
( c ) Title IV (38 FR 14945-14948). Responsibility delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Conservation, Research and Education and redelegated (38 FR 14950-14951) to the Chief of the Forest Service.
( d ) Title VI, section 603 (38 FR 14948). Responsibility delegated to and redelegated (38 FR 14953) to the Administrator, Rural Development Service.
The Rural Development Act recognizes that many Federal departments and agencies of the executive branch of government administer programs and provide services which are applicable to the needs of rural communities. Section 603 of the Rural Development Act charges the Secretary of Agriculture with providing governmentwide leadership for, and with coordinating a nationwide rural development program. In such coordination, the Secretary shall seek measures that will achieve effective integration of relevant Federal services in rural areas as provided by Agriculture agencies and other Departments and agencies. This section also requires that the Secretary shall establish goals and report to the Congress on progress in complying with specified purposes of the Act. The Federal Regional Council will play a major role in coordination at the field level. An organic Act of the Department (7 U.S.C. 2201) has been amended to require the Secretary to add Rural Development to those purposes for which he is authorized to acquire and diffuse useful information.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69705-69706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28808]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Meeting

Time and Date:  9 a.m., Thursday, November 18, 2010.

Place:  Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

Status:  Open.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Interim Final Rule--Part 704 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations,

[[Page 69706]]

Corporate Credit Unions, Technical Corrections.
    2. Proposed Rule--Part 704 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, 
Corporate Credit Unions.
    3. Insurance Fund Report and Premium/Assessment Ranges.
    4. NCUA's 2011 Operating Budget.
    5. NCUA's Overhead Transfer Rate.
    6. NCUA's Operating Fee Scale.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Board Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28808 Filed 11-10-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
#### McGOWAN, Appellant, v. CLARK, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Edward J. McGowan against John Mitchel Clark.

No opinion. Order setting aside verdict and granting new trial affirmed,' with costs, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence on the question of an account stated.
Appendix B

PRIVACY POLICY

One area of notable concern requiring attention regarding public and civil use of UAS 

technologies is personal privacy. Celestial Imaging LLC believes that an individual’s privacy is 

guaranteed by our Constitution and the Fourth Amendment and is sacrosanct and the potential 

for UAS technology to usurp those rights is very real. As with all new technology, we must 

move slowly in its application as we seek to include it in our daily lives. There are many 

emotional issues to overcome in the use of UAS technologies and part of our job in the UAS 

community is to ensure we educate and gain the trust of all people and to ensure we are ever 

mindful of their privacy concerns. Through demonstrated and responsible use and 

communication with the public, we can show that UAS can be used in a safe and effective 

manner in our National Airspace System.

Celestial Imaging LLC will comply with all federal, state, and/or local privacy policies or rules 

that may apply in particular areas where the DJI Inspire 1 is used. Further, because we will only 

fly over property with the permission of the appropriate land owner, the likelihood that we will 

collect private information of an unknown person is minimal. Imagery will be reviewed in a 

secure location to ensure that only the requested imagery was obtained and any imagery that is 

considered private will be destroyed within 72 hours.

1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 3:96cr65/LAC

MARCUS TALLEY

 /

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss the indictment.

Upon full consideration of the motion and all matters related to the custody of Defendant, the

Court hereby requiresthat Defendant undergo further psychiatric or psychological evaluation

to further assist the Court.

Accordingly, a psychological examination of the Defendant is to be conducted by

licensed psychologist James D. Larson, Ph.D., at the soonest time practicable, who shall then

file a psychological report with the Court in accordance with Title 18, United States Code,

Section 4247, with copies provided to the counsel for the person examined and to the

attorney for the Government.

The report shall include the examiner’s opinion as to:

1. Whether the Defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering

him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the

nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, to assist properly in

his defense, or to knowingly enter a plea of guilty; 

Case 3:96-cr-00065-LC-MD Document 645 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 2
3:96cr65/ LAC Page 2 of 2

2. If so, whether there is a substantial possibility that the Defendant’s mental

condition will improve within a reasonable period of time such that he will be

able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against

him; and

3. Whether the Defendant, if released or conditionally released, would pose a

substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to

property of another. 

The report shall also include:

(a) the person’s history and present symptoms;

(b) a description of the psychiatric, psychological, and medical tests that were

employed and the results;

(c) the examiner’s findings;

(d) the examiner’s opinion as to diagnosis and prognosis;

ORDERED on this 22nd day of August, 2006.

 s/L.A. Collier 

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:96-cr-00065-LC-MD Document 645 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 4.1
 AMENDMENT TWO TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
AGENTED CREDIT AGREEMENT
 ORCHIDS PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A. BANCFIRST COMMERCE BANK, N.A. BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A.
 RECITALS
   AGREEMENT
  Amendments to the Credit Agreement
  Funded Debt to EBITDA minus
  Debt Service Coverage Ratio
 Conditions Precedent




---



##### 



Borrower Ratification
 Governing Law and Binding Effect
 Costs, Expenses and Fees
 Multiple Counterparts
 Further Assurances
 [Signature pages follow.]
 2




---



##### 



BorrowerORCHIDS PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANYBy
    
    /s/ Keith R. Schroeder

Keith R. Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer
 3




---



##### 



BanksBANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A., as a Bank and AgentBy
    
    /s/ Dan A. Hughes

Dan A. Hughes, Senior Vice President
 4




---



##### 



BANCFIRSTBy
    
    /s/ Elisabeth F. Blue

Elisabeth F. Blue, Senior Vice President
 5




---



##### 



COMMERCE BANK, N.A.By
    
    /s/ Dennis Block

Dennis Block, Senior Vice President
 6
#### David Walters, Appellant, v Ernest Hansen & Son, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and Peter Bensiger, Respondent. Nicholson & Galloway, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 15, 1978, which is in favor of defendants and the third-party defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case, for failure to make out a prima facie case, at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted as to all parties and causes, with costs to abide the event. On the testimony presented, a jury could find that the accident occurred because the ladder which plaintiff was descending was not properly constructed and placed, and that the defendants were liable for plaintiff’s injuries under section 240 of the Labor Law. It was therefore error for the trial court to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs case (see *Raimes v New York Tel. Co.,*46 NY2d 132; *Cardile v D’Ambrosia,*72 AD2d 544). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSome Aspects of Essentially Nonoscillatory (ENO) Formulations for the Euler Equations, Part 3An essentially nonoscillatory (ENO) formulation is described for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws. ENO approaches are based on smart interpolation to avoid spurious numerical oscillations. ENO schemes are a superset of Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) schemes. In the recent past, TVD formulations were used to construct shock capturing finite difference methods. At extremum points of the solution, TVD schemes automatically reduce to being first-order accurate discretizations locally, while away from extrema they can be constructed to be of higher order accuracy. The new framework helps construct essentially non-oscillatory finite difference methods without recourse to local reductions of accuracy to first order. Thus arbitrarily high orders of accuracy can be obtained. The basic general ideas of the new approach can be specialized in several ways and one specific implementation is described based on: (1) the integral form of the conservation laws; (2) reconstruction based on the primitive functions; (3) extension to multiple dimensions in a tensor product fashion; and (4) Runge-Kutta time integration. The resulting method is fourth-order accurate in time and space and is applicable to uniform Cartesian grids. The construction of such schemes for scalar equations and systems in one and two space dimensions is described along with several examples which illustrate interesting aspects of the new approach.Document ID19900011633Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsChakravarthy, Sukumar R.*(Rockwell International Science Center Thousand Oaks, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-4285NAS 1.26:4285Accession Number90N20949Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-17492PROJECT: RTOP 505-60-01-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900011633.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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GREGORY A. LADELE, D.O.,

Plaintiff,

 v. Case No. 4:20cv80-MW/MAF

 

MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS,

LLC, f/k/a MHM HEALTH

PROFESSIONALS, INC.,

Defendant.

__________________________/

ORDER DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL

This Court has considered, without hearing, Defendant’s Motion to 

Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Discovery, ECF No. 14, along with 

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion. ECF No. 19. The motion is 

DENIED in part as moot without prejudice to renew if Plaintiff’s responses are 

not adequate. The motion is GRANTED insofar as this Court awards attorney’s 

fees by stipulation to Defendant. This Court will determine the amount of fees 

at the end of the case.

SO ORDERED on April 21, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00080-MW-MAF Document 20 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7713

JEFFERY L. MANESS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CLERK OF COURT FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME

COURT AND ALL SITTING JUSTICES OF THE NORTH

CAROLINA SUPREME COURT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-659-BR3)

Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffery L. Maness, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on September 25, 1997;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on November 25, 1997, which

is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant's failure to note

a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore 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
Exhibit 32.2

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Aleritas Capital Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert D. Orr, Chief Financial 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, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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 operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 13, 2008



/s/ Robert D. OrrRobert D. OrrChief Financial Officer




66