alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Renault Frères Selling Branch, Incorporated, Appellant, *v.*Sewall & Alden, Respondent.

Reported below, 153 App. Div. 33.

(Submitted February 24, 1913;

decided March 4, 1913.)

Motion for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 17, 1912, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and granting a new trial in an action to recover for labor performed and materials furnished.

The motion was made upon the ground that since taking the appeal the order of the Appellate Division had been amended so as to state that the reversal was upon questions of fact.

*755
      *Henry Hoelljes*for motion.

*Joseph M. Allen*opposed.

Motion granted upon appellant, within twenty days, paying respondent costs of the appeal to date; on failure to comply with these terms the appeal is dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

KENNETH JON PINER,

Petitioner

v.

BLAIR COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 5 WM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of March, 2018, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus/Extraordinary Relief, and the Application for

Relief are DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Ellis , 626 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1993)

(explaining that hybrid representation is not per mitted). The Prothonotary is DIRECTED

to forward the filings to counsel of record.
#### Richard H. Spencer, Appellant, v. Benjamin A. Clarke, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Daniels, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5                                      EXHIBIT 27
<MULTIPLIER>1000
       
<S>                           <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               10,919
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        39,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                            521
<INVENTORY>                                          34,842
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     93,107
<PP&E>                                               39,112
<DEPRECIATION>                                       17,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      149,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                55,325
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                137
<OTHER-SE>                                         (125,467)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        149,904
<SALES>                                             156,618
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    156,618
<CGS>                                                76,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        69,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     10,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   14,780
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (10,836)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          2,812
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (13,648)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (13,648)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (1.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (1.50)
        

</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Drug use forecasting. Annualreport on adult and juvenile arrestees.**
 
1994 | 1995 | 1996 |1997
 
SuDoc Number:J 28.15/2-3:
Item Number:0717-J-01
CGP systemNumber:000455537
 
January 29, 2020
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme**  **Court Cause No. DA 22 -**  **0035** BROAD REACH POWER, L LC , and NORTHWESTERN ENERGY Appellants, v. THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATION, MONTANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellee. **ORDER GRANTING EXTEN SION OF TIME**  Appellants NorthWestern Energy and Broad Reach Power, LLC, having filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time pursuant to Rule 26(1) of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure , and good cause appearing therefrom; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. Appellants’ reply brief is due August 18, 2022. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 12 2022

07/12/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0035
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------

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


      The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

      In connection with the Annual Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - III (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, 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, as amended; and

       2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Partnership.




March 31, 2005                                   /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
--------------                                   --------------------
     Date                                        Joseph M. Jayson
                                                 Individual General Partner and
                                                 Principal Financial Officer
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 17, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 50 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-2 10 97 -J AL-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us REGINALD HOL SEY, a.k .a. Co rnbr ead , a.k .a. CB, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t,

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st17 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BLACK andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ph il li p Ho ro wit z, ap po in te d c ou ns el forReg in al d Ho ls ey inth is di rect cri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti onof t he ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o Ander s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S. Ct . 13 96 (19 67 ). Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of t he en ti re re co rdrev eal s tha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. The fin al jud gm en t, h owe ve r, co nt ai ns a cl eri cal erro r, inth atitsp eci fie s tha t Ho ls ey ’s co nv ic ti on on Co un t El ev enis forco ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne , in st eadof c oc ai ne ba se . There fo re, we REMAND IN PART WI TH INST RUCTIO NS to co rrec t the cle ric al erro r on th e fi na l ju dg m en t. Inall ot he r res pe ct s, h owe ve r, in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t. Co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is th eref or e GRANTED , an d Ho ls ey ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es are AFFIRMED .

2
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 21-2722

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael Lee Bevins

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________ 

Submitted: March 2, 2022

Filed: March 10, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Lee Bevins appeals after the district court1 revoked his term of 

supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1

The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Iowa.
-2- 

On appeal, Bevins argues the district court erred in finding that a 

preponderance of the evidence showed he violated his conditions of supervision. 

This court finds no basis for reversal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke 

supervised release if it finds by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated 

conditions of supervised release); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913-14 (8th 

Cir. 2009) (this court reviews decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of 

discretion, and underlying factual findings as to whether a violation occurred for 

clear error; district court need find only one violation to revoke supervised release); 

United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (under clear error 

review, this court may reverse only if it has a definite and firm conviction that district 

court was mistaken); cf. United States v. Asalati, 615 F.3d 1001, 1005 (8th Cir. 2010) 

(witness credibility determinations, reviewed for clear error, are “virtually 

unreviewable” on appeal). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________
#### Thomas E. Joyce, Respondent, v. Elizabeth F. Spafford, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs, on the opinion of Kennedy, J., delivered at Special Term; Kennedy, J., not sitting.
No. 357, Misc.

#### Rine *v.*Boles, Warden, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**SECTION 302**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Judith A. Berry, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of AmNet Mortgage, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for theregistrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: August 15, 2005   |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Judith A. Berry     |   |
| Judith A. Berry         |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
From: Mark Glasser

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s Health Care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:42:01 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine

as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care

law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would

provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny

women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an

ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health

providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt

from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.

Thanks, Mark
•....t"',:'·

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

and

THE UNITED ILLUMiNATING COMPANY

TRADING AGREEMENT AND

ORDER NO. 8102 MODIFICATION

TRADING AGREEMENT AND ORDER MODlFICAIlON

In the matter of a Trading Agreement and Order between the Commissioner of Environmental

Protection ("Commissioner") and The United Illuminating Company ("VI").

WHEREAS, the Commissioner and UI, having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth

in Trading Agreement and Order No. 8102 issued on December 15, 1995, do now, by mutual

agreement. modify paragraphs C.1., C.l. e., C.2., Co3. and C.IO. as follows:

1. Change the second date specified in paragraph C.l. from April 30, 2000 to

April 30, 2003.

2. Replace paragraph C.l. e. as follows: No later than March 1, 1999,2000,2001.

2002,2003 and 2004, UI shall include with its annual emissions report to the

Commissioner, the monthly rate of fuel consumption for the boiler and ERCs used

by the boiler for the previous calendar year;

3. Change the date specified in paragraph C.2. from May I, 1999 to May 1,2003.

4. Change the first date specified in paragraph C.3. from May 1, 1999 to May 1,2003.

5. Change the first date specified in paragraph C.IO. from May I, 1999 to

May 1,2003.

All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order No. 8102 issued by the

Commissioner acting under Sections 22a-6, 22a-171, 22a-174, 22a-176, 22a-177 and 22a-178 of

the Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in effect.

Initials: ~(;"%n-,-',,,' >-L'_

(Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street • Hartford. CT 06106 - 5127

Illtp:lldep.state.ct.us

...." Eqwo.l 0pp0rlw"iry Employu

Date 1,Ucl'i'i I )
THE UNITED ILLUMI ATING

COMPA Y

2 TRADING AGREEMENT A D

ORDER NO" 8102

MODIFICATION

TIle United Illuminating Company hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading

Agreement and Order without further notice.

The United Illuminating Company

- I I ,

Signature: -,-_/e-'

, c,-"l,-°d.cor"'''',,'fI-L"_.;.,I\-,'..'","=-=--'c'-_---=_=' ~_

Type Name: Albert N. Henricksen

Type Title: Group Vice President - Support Services

Date: April 30. 1999

Rocque, Jr.

omrnissioner

Entered as a modification of an Order ofIhe Commissioner of Environmental Protection numbered

"'Ol-k 8102 this Q.:-__day of -'--'-J'-JL.'=.>~__ 1999"

CITY OF NEW HAYEN

LAND RECORDS

MAJLED CERTIFIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Ce~ified Document No.
From: findhope736@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:39 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

John Zacharias

Durand, WI 54736
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 19, 2024

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

________________ No. 3D24

- 0629 Lower Tribunal No. F22

- 15805

________________


### Jose A. Martinez , Petitioner,

vs. 

### The State of Florida, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction

– Prohibition. Coffey Burlington, P.L. , Kendall Coffey, Law Offices of Neil G. Taylor, P.A., Neil G. Taylor, Kuehne Davis Law, P.A., and Benedict P. Kuehne, for petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General , and Sandra Lipman, Senior Assist ant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. MILLER, J

.2

Petitioner, Jose A. Martinez, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the assigned trial judge from further presiding over his case. The allegations advanced in his disqualification motion relate to events that occurred outside the presence of the jury. Incanting the familiar mantras that a judicial admonishment or “the judge’s efforts to control her courtroom,” Fetzner v. State , 219 So. 3d 834, 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), standing alone, and “[d]isbelief in the witness’s testimony, as evidenced by a trial judge’s discomforting inquiry, .

. . [are] ordinarily no basis for disqualification,” Nateman v. Greenbaum , 582 So. 2d 643, 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), we conclude the trial court properly determined the motion was legally
in sufficient and therefore deny relief. See Correll v. State , 698 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 1997) (“A motion to disqualify will be dismissed as le gally insufficient if it fails to establish a well

- grounded fear on the part of the movant that he will not receive a fair hearing.”); see also Nateman , 582 So. 2d at 644 (denying petition because “[d]isqualifying a judge because his examination of a witne ss on relevant matters gives a clue as to how he may be inclined to rule at the end of the evidence would wreak administrative havoc in the circuit court by inviting mid

- hearing motions for recusal”); Braddy v. State , 111 So. 3d 810, 834 (Fla. 2012) (deter mining appellant’s factual allegations of judge’s bias were legally insufficient to require disqualification3

when trial judge made comments to defendant in response to defendant’s
behavior ); Fetzner , 219 So. 3d at 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (finding appellant ’s allegations of trial judge’s behavior did not show prejudice, but rather efforts to control her courtroom and were therefore legally insufficient) ; Koelemij v. State , 285 So. 3d 376 , 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (affirming trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for disqualification as legally insufficient because “the court’s reprimand did not give rise to a reasonable belief that the court was biased and that [a]ppellant would not receive a fair trial”)

. Petition denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Vail Banks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary
S. Judd, Chief Executive Officer and President (principal 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, that:

|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.

|/s/ Gary S.
  Judd                     
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|                                       
|                                       
|Gary S. Judd                           
|Chief
  Executive Officer and President
|August 13,
  2004