alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1802

In re: JOHN DOE

,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 7:01

- cr

- 00027

- BO

- 1 )

Submitted : November 30, 2020 Decided: December 3, 2020

Before KING and MOTZ , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

John Doe, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

John Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly

delayed in ruling on his second motion for bond pending appeal

. He seeks an order from

this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay

in the district court. A ccordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We grant the motion

to proceed by pseudonym and deny the motion to expedite as moot. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are ad equately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
§ 3030.180 Definitions. ( a ) The definitions in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section apply to this subpart.
( b ) *Amortization payments* mean the amounts that the Postal Service is invoiced by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to provide for the liquidation of the specific and supplemental unfunded liabilities by statutorily predetermined dates, as described in § 3030.182(a).
( c ) *Phase-in period* means the period of time spanning the fiscal years of issuance of the first five determinations following January 14, 2021, as specified by the timing provisions in § 3030.181.
( d ) *Required minimum remittance* means the minimum amount the Postal Service is required to remit during a particular fiscal year, as calculated under § 3030.184.
( e ) *Revenue collected under this subpart* means the amount of revenue collected during a fiscal year as a result of all previous rate increases authorized under this subpart, as calculated under § 3030.184.
#### JOHN BELL, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants in Error.

*Chap.*395 *of*1871 *—failwre of Jmsband to support wife.*

Where a person is brought before a police justice, under chapter 395 of 1871, charged with an abandonment of, and a failure to support his wife, the fact that his wife had formerly abandoned him, and that she was a dangerous woman, who had formerly offered him violence, does not relieve him from the duty of supporting his family, where there is an offer to live with him and a demand for support.

■ Certiorari to review the conviction of the plaintiff in error, of abandoning his wife and leaving her without adequate means of support.

*303
      *Thomas Bracken,*for plaintiff in error. *Wm. Sullivan,*foi defendant in error.

Opinion by

Tappen, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Talcott and Tappen, JJ.

Proceedings affirmed.
**EXHIBIT10.42**

** **

**AMENDMENT TWO TO THE**

**2000 PERFORMANCE SHARE PLAN OF**

**DUKE-WEEKS REALTY CORPORATION**

 

This Amendment Two to the 2000Performance Share Plan of Duke-Weeks Realty Corporation (“Plan”) is herebyadopted this 28th day of January, 2004 by Duke Realty Limited Partnership(“Corporation”). Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has themeaning set forth in the Plan.

 

WITNESSETH:

 

WHEREAS, theCorporation maintains the Plan for the purposes set forth therein; and

 

WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Corporation(“Board”) and the Executive Compensation Committee of the Board (“Committee”)have reserved the right to amend the Plan with respect to certain matters; and

 

WHEREAS, theCommittee has determined to amend the Plan to clarify the definition of “Fundsfrom Operations Per Share;” and

 

WHEREAS, theCommittee has approved and authorized this Amendment Two;

 

NOW,THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority reserved to the Committee under Section4.1 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of January 28, 2004,with respect to all Performance Shares granted at any time under the Plan inthe following particular:

 

By adding the following sentence to the endof Section 3.3.2 of the Plan:

 

If the manner inwhich Funds from Operations Per Share is computed by the Partnership is changedas a result of a directive from the National Association of Real EstateInvestment Trusts or the Securities and Exchange Commission after the date onwhich the Performance Goals for a Performance Period is established by theCommittee, then the determination of whether the Performance Goals have beenachieved for such Performance Period shall be based upon the computation ofFunds from Operations per Share using the methodology in effect on the date thePerformance Goals were established.

 

All otherprovisions of the Plan shall remain the same.

 

IN WITNESSWHEREOF, Duke Realty Limited Partnership, by its duly authorized officer, hasexecuted this Amendment Two to the 2000 Performance Share Plan of Duke-WeeksRealty Corporation this 28th day of January, 2004.

 
|   | **DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP** |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   |
|   |
|   | By:                                 |   /s/  Dennis D. Oklak |   |
|   |                                | Dennis D.  Oklak, President |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5113 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5113

 To amend the Flood Control Act of 1944 to provide that investor owned 
  utilities and other private entities shall have the same rights to 
  purchase electric energy generated at Federal facilities as public 
            bodies and cooperatives, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 6, 2000

Mr. Bilbray (for himself, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Packard, and Mr. Cunningham) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on 
 Resources and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Flood Control Act of 1944 to provide that investor owned 
  utilities and other private entities shall have the same rights to 
  purchase electric energy generated at Federal facilities as public 
            bodies and cooperatives, 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 ``Fairness in Electricity Supply Act 
of 2000''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF PREFERENCE SALES OF POWER.

    (a) Amendment of Flood Control Act of 1944.--The Flood Control Act 
of 1944 (58 Stat. 887) is amended by striking out ``Preference in the 
sale of such power and energy shall be given to public bodies and 
cooperatives.''.
    (b) Other Authorities.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no preference shall be given to a public body or cooperative, or any 
other person or entity in the purchase of electric power and energy 
generated at a hydroelectric project or other facility owned by the 
United States.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect with respect to 
power sales contracts entered into or renewed after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32
                        American Airlines, Inc.
                             Certification
       Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                          United States Code)


Pursuant   to  section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act   of   2002
(subsections  (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63  of  title  18,
United  States  Code), each of the undersigned officers  of  American
Airlines,  Inc.,  a Delaware corporation (the Company),  does  hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  March  31,
2005  (the  Form  10-Q)  of  the  Company  fully  complies  with  the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934  and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in  all  material respects, the financial condition  and  results  of
operations of the Company.

Date:  April 21, 2005              /s/ Gerard J. Arpey
                                   Gerard J. Arpey
                                   Chairman, President and Chief
                                   Executive Officer

Date:  April 21, 2005              /s/ James A. Beer
                                   James A. Beer
                                   Senior Vice President and Chief
                                   Financial Officer



The  foregoing  certification is being furnished solely  pursuant  to
section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections  (a)  and
(b)  of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and
is  not  being  filed  as  part of the Form 10-Q  or  as  a  separate
disclosure document.
#### § 102-118.360 How long will GSA take to respond to an exemption request from a transportation prepayment audit requirement?

GSA will respond to the exemption from the transportation prepayment audit requirement request within 180 calendar days from the date of receipt.
<Page>

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY




       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints Donald E. Steen and John J. Wellik and each of them, his true and
lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director
or officer, or both, as the case may be, of United Surgical Partners
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001,
and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact,
and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said
attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause
to be done by virtue hereof.







                                            /s/ Mark A. Kopser
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Mark A. Kopser
##### 



Exhibit 15 The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Allied Capital Corporation: Re: Registration Statement
Nos. 333-45525, 333-13584, 333-88681, 333-101849, 333-115979,
333-115980, 333-115981, 333-130793 and 333-130792. Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness
of the use therein of our report dated
May 7, 2007 related to our review of
interim financial information. Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant,
or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7
and 11 of the Act. /s/ KPMG LLP Washington, D.C.
May 7, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-cv-22389-ALTMAN/Reid

ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AE OUTFITTERS RETAIL CO.

d/b/a American Eagle Outfitters,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

The parties have settled this case. See Notice of Settlement [ECF No. 10]. Accordingly, the 

Court hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows:

1. The above-styled action is administratively CLOSED without prejudice to the parties. 

The parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal by October 7, 2022.

2. If the parties fail to complete the expected settlement, any party may ask the Court to 

reopen the case.

3. All pending deadlines are TERMINATED, and any pending motions are DENIED AS 

MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this 7th day of September 2022.

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-22389-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00344-CR

Luis Carlos MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR6587

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED June 7, 2023.

___________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Court of Appeals, First District

301 Fannin Street

<H Houston, Texas 77002-2066

»

j'ST^toS
JUDGMENT

Court of gppeal*

f trsst Mxtxitt ofMtsm

NO. 01-15-00372-CV

LU SHANNON SORGMAN, Appellant

V.

JASON MUSICK AND STEVEN PRATER DBA CAPITAL CITY REAL ESTATE

INVESTMENT, Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Travis County.

(Tr. Ct. No. C-l-CV-15-002112).

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on March 31, 2015.

Appellant, Lu Shannon Sorgman, did not timely file a brief. After being notified that this

appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. It is therefore

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed for want

of prosecution.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered October 27, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Jennings, Higley, and

Brown.
Opinion issued October 27, 2015

In The

Court of iippeate

For The

Jftr^t Bfetrtct of tEexaa

NO. 01-15-00372-CV

LU SHANNON SORGMAN, Appellant

V.

JASON MUSICK & STEVEN PRATER DBA CAPITAL CITY REAL

ESTATE INVESTMENT, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. C-l-CV-15-002112

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Lu Shannon Sorgman, has failed to timely file a brief. See Tex.

R. App. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of

appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to
dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b)

(allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for Want of prosecution for failure to timely file a

brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists ofJustices Jennings, Higley, and Brown.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

596 KA 07-00531
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ORLANDO HERNANDEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), rendered December 11, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings on the indictment.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10 [1]). Although County Court was required to sentence defendant to a five-year period of postrelease supervision based upon his status as a second felony offender ( see § 70.45 [former (2)]; People v Motley [appeal No. 3], 56 AD3d 1158, 1159), at the plea the court informed defendant only that he would be sentenced to the “minimum” period of postrelease supervision. Because the court failed to specify the period of postrelease supervision or the permissible range of postrelease supervision prior to imposing sentence, reversal is required ( see People v Thomas
, 68 AD3d 1445, 1446-1447). We reject the People’s contention that defendant was required to preserve his challenge to the voluntariness of the plea based on the court’s failure, prior to sentencing, to advise him of the period of postrelease supervision to be imposed or the parameters thereof ( see People v Boyd , 12 NY3d 390, 393; People v Louree , 8 NY3d 541, 545- 546). “When a defendant is not made aware of mandatory postrelease supervision—or the specific duration or range of that component of postrelease supervision—prior to the imposition of sentence, the voluntariness of the plea may be challenged on appeal even absent preservation of the issue by postallocution motion” ( People v Lee , 80-2- 596 KA 07-00531

AD3d 1072, 1073; see People v Murray , 15 NY3d 725).

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### WARNER *v.*QUINLON and Wife.

[In Chancery.]

*Practice in Foreclosure Oases.*

In foreclosure cases, when the question is as to what is due as depending on payments, or matter directly applicable to reduce the sum due, without affecting the validity of the mortgage as security, reference is to be made to a master in the first instance; the subject is not to be litigated by answer, replication, and proofs, as is done in other cases of ordinary equity cognizance and litigation.

Per Curiam.

This was a petition for foreclosure, to which answer was filed, setting up payment' in defence. Replication, and evidence taken in ordinary form. The court, of its own motion, dismissed the appeal, and remanded the cause, with an order that it be referred to a master to ascertain and report the sum due.

Some inquiries that have been made as to this case, and the fact that several like cases, within the last year, have appeared in the Supreme Court in like condition, lead the court to suppose that the proper course in such cases is not understood by all members of the Bar. The above entitled case is made the occasion for saying and promulgating, that the established practice in cases of foreclosure is, where the subject of inquiry and dispute is, what is due, as depending on payments, or matter directly applicable to reduce the sum due, without affecting the validity of the mortgage as security, reference is to be made to a master in the first instance ; and the subject is not to be litigated by answer, replication, and proofs, as is done in other cases of ordinary equity cognizance and litigation. The action and decision of the court is to be had upon what is brought before the court as the result of such reference to the master, and not upon formal pleadings, and upon proofs addressed to the court in the first instance.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of The Allied Defense Group, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f) for the registrant and we have:
 (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; and(d)
    
    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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: March 20, 2007
    /s/ John J. MarcelloJohn J. MarcelloChief Executive Officer and
President
Exhibit 13.02



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



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of British Energy Group plc, (the Company) for the annual period ended March 31, 2005
(the Periodic Report), I, Stephen Billingham, Finance Director of the Company, hereby 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 the
Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



/s/ Stephen BillinghamStephen BillinghamFinance Director




Date:
July 28, 2005



---