alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Submitted on record and briefs November 7,

reversed and remanded December 7, 1994

#### In the Matter of Judith May, aka Masters, Rocca, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JUDITH MAY, aka Masters, Rocca, *Appellant.*

(9403-95759; CA A83731)

888 P2d 14

Paul L. Breed submitted the brief for appellant.

*570-aTheodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Kristin N. Preston, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*571PER CURIAM

Appellant, an alleged mentally ill person, appeals from a judgment of involuntary civil commitment. Because we conclude that the trial court erred in falling to advise appellant of her hearing rights, we reverse.

The state concedes that the trial court failed to explain to appellant her rights under ORS 426.100(1),1 as required by *State v. Allison,*129 Or App 47, 877 P2d 660 (1994). The state contends, however, that any error was waived by counsel, who made no objection at the hearing.

 We hold that a lawyer’s failure to object, standing alone, does not constitute a waiver of the right to be advised of the rights pertaining to the conduct of a civil mental commitment hearing. Those are mandatory advisements specifically designed to ensure that the alleged mentally ill person receives the benefits of a full and fair hearing. The court must either advise the alleged mentally ill person directly regarding those rights or conduct an examination on the record to determine whether a valid waiver of the right to be advised has been knowingly and voluntarily made. Here, the court neither advised appellant nor conducted any such examination.

Reversed and remanded.

1

 ORS 426.100(1) provides:

> “At the time the alleged mentally ill person is brought before the court, the court shall advise the person of the following:

> “(a) The reason for being brought before the court;

> “(b) The nature of the proceedings;

> “(c) The possible results of the proceedings’;

> “(d) The right to subpoena witnesses; and

> “(e) The person’s rights regarding representation by or appointment of counsel.”
No. 10-11142.

#### Kavel *v.*Marshall, Warden.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-8945.

#### Vasquez-Bonilla *v.*United Union of Roofers Local 8 et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Simon Simpson v. Emanuel Rothschild *et al.*

Case, *Still*Pending— *Orders, not Reviewed.*The court below overruled a motion made by the defendant to quash the summons and to dismiss the action, and also overruled a motion made by the defendant to discharge the attachment and to dismiss the action, and also permitted the plaintiff to amend his undertaking in the attachment; and before any judgment was rendered in the case, the defendant, as plaintiff in error, brought the case to the supreme court for review. *Held,*That while the case is still pending undisposed of in the court below, the foregoing orders made by the court below cannot be reviewed by the supreme court.

*Error from Cloud District Court.*

The opinion, filed at the session of the court in January, 1890, contains a sufficient statement of the case.

*L. J. Crans,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doing & Wrong,*for defendants in error.

*34The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

It is claimed in this case that the court below erred in overruling a motion made by the defendant below, plaintiff in error, to quash the summons'and to dismiss the action; and also erred in overruling a motion made by the defendant below, plaintiff in error, to discharge the attachment and to dismiss the action; and also erred in permitting .the plaintiffs below, defendants in error, to amend their undertaking in attachment. It does not appear, however, that any judgment has ever been rendered in the case; nor does it appear that any final order has ever been made therein; nor that any other order has ever been made which may be reviewed by this court before the final judgment in the case has been rendered. From anything appearing in the record brought to this court, the case is still pending undisposed of in the court below. It will therefore, under the authority of the following decisions, be dismissed from this court: *Miller v. Noyes,*34 Kas. 13; *Snavely v. Buggy Co.,*36 id. 106, 112, and the numerous cases there cited; *Burch v. Adams,*40 id. 639; *Boyd v. Cook,*40 id. 675; *Steele v. Newton,*41 id. 512; same case, 21 Pac. Rep. 644; *Callen v. Junction*City, 41 Kas. 466; same case, 21 Pac. Rep. 647.

The petition in error and case will be dismissed.

All the Justices concurring.

*Per Curiam:*

The case of *Simpson v. Frankenthall,*No. 5112, will be dismissed from the supreme court, upon the authority of the case of *Simpson v.*Rothschild, just decided.
EXHIBIT 32



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Andrea Electronics Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                                                                   
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 16, 2005 |  | /s/ DOULGAS J. ANDREA                                                                             
|                   |  | Douglas J. Andrea Chairman of the Board,
President,Chief Executive Officer and Corporate Secretary
|                   | 
|                   |  | /s/ CORISA L. GUIFFRE                                                                             
|                   |  | Corisa L. Guiffre Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer andAssistant Corporate Secretary
150P15-2

#### State v. Quincy Lamar Hill

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Re-Hearing

Dismissed

Beasley, J.,

recused
No. 11A807.

#### Rowell *v.*Palmer, Warden, et al.

Application for certificate of appealability,

addressed to Justice Breyer and referred to the Court, denied.
Order entered February 15, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00029-CV

NICHOLAS WESTERMAN, Appellant

V.

POST HEIGHTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-05822-A

ORDER

By letter filed January 31, 2019, court reporter Cathye Moreno informed the Court no 

reporter’s record exists in this case. Accordingly, as the clerk’s record has been filed, we 

ORDER appellant to file his brief on the merits no later than March 18, 2019.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
112A15

#### Dana Marie Ribelin (fka Creel) v. Phillip Ray Creel

Pit’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief

Denied 01/27/2016
035P16

#### State v. William Miller Baker

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-649)

1. Allowed 02/05/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ADALBERTO RAMOS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 3

- 116

[ March 23, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 0 0 (a) motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Frank Ledee , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 08

- 2567CF10A

.

Adalberto Ramos

, Miami , pro se

.

No appearance required for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER

, D AMOORGIAN

, and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 11.2

                                               ANDERSEN GROUP, INC.

                                  STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                    FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1997

                                       (In thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                   <C>                   <C>              <C>    
                                                                         NUMBER OF SHARES
                                                                          OF COMMON STOCK
                                                                         AND COMMON STOCK
                                                          NET              EQUIVALENTS
                                                         INCOME            OUTSTANDING                                       
                                     
Calculation of Primary  Earnings Per Share:

Unadjusted amounts                                      $1,876                 1,934
Impact of exercise of stock options, net of
   treasury shares that could be repurchased using
   average price of common stock of $6.29 per
   share                                                     -                    24
                                                        ------                ------
Primary Earnings Per Share                              $1,876                 1,958            $0.96
                                                        ======             =========            =====

Calculation of Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share:
Unadjusted amounts                                      $1,876                 1,934
Impact of conversion of 10.5%
   Convertible Subordinated Debentures,
   net of taxes                                            268                   351

Impact of conversion of Preferred Stock                    321                   496

Impact of exercise of stock options, net of
    Treasury shares that could be repurchased
    using period end price of $7.625 per share               -                    26
                                                       -------              --------                                               
                                                        $2,465               $ 2,807
                                                       -------              --------
Fully Diluted Earnings Per Common Share                                                         $0.88
                                                                                                =====
</TABLE>
§ 109-50.106 Procedure. ( a ) After DOE utilization screening through EADS, items eligible for LEDP grants are extracted from the EADS system and Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS).
( b ) Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) to prospective grantees through an automated system.
( c ) The following periods have been established during which time equipment will remain available to this program prior to reporting it to GSA for reutilization by other Federal agencies: ( 1 ) Thirty days from the date DOE utilization screening is completed to permit suitable time for eligible institutions to review and earmark the desired equipment.
( 2 ) An additional thirty days after the equipment is earmarked to permit the eligible institutions to prepare and submit an equipment proposal request and to provide time for field organizations to review and evaluate the proposal and take appropriate action.
( d ) Upon approval of the proposal, a grant will be issued to the institution upon completion.
( e ) A copy of the completed grant, shall be used to transfer title and drop accountability of the granted equipment from the financial records.
( f ) The cost of care and handling of personal property incident to the grant shall be charged to the receiving institution. Such costs may consist of packing, crating, shipping and insurance, and are limited to actual costs. In addition, where appropriate, the cost of any repair and/or modification to any equipment shall be borne by the recipient institution.
§ 60-2.10 General purpose and contents of affirmative action programs. ( a ) *Purpose.* ( 1 ) An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity. A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor's workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects. Affirmative action programs contain a diagnostic component which includes a number of quantitative analyses designed to evaluate the composition of the workforce of the contractor and compare it to the composition of the relevant labor pools. Affirmative action programs also include action-oriented programs. If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor's affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization. Effective affirmative action programs also include internal auditing and reporting systems as a means of measuring the contractor's progress toward achieving the workforce that would be expected in the absence of discrimination.
( 2 ) An affirmative action program also ensures equal employment opportunity by institutionalizing the contractor's commitment to equality in every aspect of the employment process. Therefore, as part of its affirmative action program, a contractor monitors and examines its employment decisions and compensation systems to evaluate the impact of those systems on women and minorities.
( 3 ) An affirmative action program is, thus, more than a paperwork exercise. An affirmative action program includes those policies, practices, and procedures that the contractor implements to ensure that all qualified applicants and employees are receiving an equal opportunity for recruitment, selection, advancement, and every other term and privilege associated with employment. Affirmative action, ideally, is a part of the way the contractor regularly conducts its business. OFCCP has found that when an affirmative action program is approached from this perspective, as a powerful management tool, there is a positive correlation between the presence of affirmative action and the absence of discrimination.
( b ) *Contents of affirmative action programs.* ( 1 ) An affirmative action program must include the following quantitative analyses: ( i ) Organizational profile—§ 60-2.11;
( ii ) Job group analysis—§ 60-2.12;
( iii ) Placement of incumbents in job groups—§ 60-2.13;
( iv ) Determining availability—§ 60-2.14;
( v ) Comparing incumbency to availability—§ 60-2.15; and
( vi ) Placement goals—§ 60-2.16.
( 2 ) In addition, an affirmative action program must include the following components specified in the § 60-2.17 of this part: ( i ) Designation of responsibility for implementation;
( ii ) Identification of problem areas;
( iii ) Action-oriented programs; and
( iv ) Periodic internal audits.
( c ) *Documentation.* Contractors must maintain and make available to OFCCP documentation of their compliance with §§ 60-2.11 through 60-2.17.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4193 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4193

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the building located at 100 Vester Gade, in Cruz Bay, 
 Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, for the period of time during which it 
     houses operations of the United States Postal Service, as the 
                   ``Ubaldina Simmons Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The building located at 100 Vester Gade, in Cruz Bay, Saint Thomas, 
Virgin Islands, shall, for the period
of time during which it houses operations of the United States Postal 
Service, be known and designated as the ``Ubaldina Simmons Post 
Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall, with respect to the period referred to in section 1, be deemed 
to be a reference to the Ubaldina Simmons Post Office.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 1994.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4193

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the building located at 100 Vester Gade, in Cruz Bay, 
 Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, for the period of time during which it 
     houses operations of the United States Postal Service, as the 
                   ``Ubaldina Simmons Post Office''.
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDINGPERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, DonaldMiller-Jones , the Chief Financial Officer of Moscow CableCom Corp. (the"Company"), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that,to the best of my knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended November 30, 2004 (the "Report") filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission:

- 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 Report     fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and     results of operations of the Company.

/s/          Donald Miller-JonesName:    Donald Miller-JonesTitle:       Chief Financial OfficerDate:       January 18, 2005
No. 11-9238.

#### Gonzalez Perez *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Class Number NAICS

Dummy 0483111/483113 Cruise Ships 0 11411 Commercial Fishing

2326 11411 Freight Barges 0 11411 Freight Ships 0 11411 Passenger Vessels 0 11411 Recreational Ships 0 11411 Tank Barges 0 11411 Tank Ships 0 11411 Utility Vessels 0 11411 Cruise Ships 0483111/483113 Commercial Fishing 0483111/483113 Freight Barges 7307483111/483113 Freight Ships 633483111/483113 Passenger Vessels 0483111/483113 Recreational Ships 0483111/483113 Tank Barges 1469483111/483113 Tank Ships 311483111/483113 Utility Vessels 3483111/483113 Cruise Ships 175483112/483114 Commercial Fishing 0483112/483114 Freight Barges 0483112/483114 Freight Ships 0483112/483114 Passenger Vessels

1611483112/483114 Recreational Ships 0483112/483114 Tank Barges 0483112/483114 Tank Ships 0483112/483114 Utility Vessels 2483112/483114 Cruise Ships 0 483211 Commercial Fishing 0 483211 Freight Barges 32362 483211 Freight Ships 36 483211 Passenger Vessels 0 483211 Recreational Ships 0 483211 Tank Barges 5370 483211 Tank Ships 21 483211 Utility Vessels 128 483211 Cruise Ships 0 483212 Commercial Fishing 0 483212 Freight Barges 0 483212 Freight Ships 0 483212 Passenger Vessels267 483212 Recreational Ships 0 483212 Tank Barges 0 483212 Tank Ships 0 483212 Utility Vessels 5 483212Cruise Ships 0 487210

Commercial Fishing 0 487210 Freight Barges 43 487210 Freight Ships 3 487210 Passenger Vessels 80 487210 Recreational Ships 0 487210 Tank Barges 0 487210 Tank Ships 0 487210 Utility Vessels 5 487210 Cruise Ships 0 488310 Commercial Fishing 0 488310 Freight Barges 0 488310 Freight Ships 0 488310 Passenger Vessels 0 488310 Recreational Ships 0 488310 Tank Barges 0 488310 Tank Ships 0 488310 Utility Vessels 1955 488310 Cruise Ships 0 488320 Commercial Fishing 0 488320 Freight Barges 46 488320 Freight Ships 1 488320 Passenger Vessels 0 488320 Recreational Ships 0 488320 Tank Barges 100 488320 Tank Ships 0 488320 Utility Vessels 42 488320 Cruise Ships 0 488330 Commercial Fishing 0 488330 Freight Barges 0 488330 Freight Ships 138 488330 Passenger Vessels 1 488330 Recreational Ships 0 488330 Tank Barges 203 488330 Tank Ships 0 488330 Utility Vessels 4041 488330 Cruise Ships 0 488390 Commercial Fishing 0 488390 Freight Barges 1 488390 Freight Ships 0 488390 Passenger Vessels 11 488390 Recreational Ships 0 488390 Tank Barges 1 488390 Tank Ships 0 488390 Utility Vessels 2 488390 Cruise Ships 0 213111 Commercial Fishing 0 213111Freight Barges 0 213111

Freight Ships 0 213111 Passenger Vessels 0 213111 Recreational Ships 0 213111 Tank Barges 0 213111 Tank Ships 0 213111 Utility Vessels 75 213111
No. 11-43.

#### Wooten et al. *v.*Quicken Loans Inc.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9592.

#### Jones *v.*United States.

C. A.. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Michael Anthony MARSHALL v. STATE

CR-14-0112

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

03/06/2015

Affirmed
# Comments on: 19-1885: MARK DUNNING INDUSTRIES, INC. v. US [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

STEPHEN FREDERICK BAKER, JR., 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 984 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.