alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

AVERY SOUFFRANT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 1335

[ July 11, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael Lynch , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 13

- 242CF10A

.

Avery Souffrant, Lake Butler, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, F ORST and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Partnership. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                  Nancy J. McGurk                                     |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Nancy                  J. McGurk                                         |
| Title: | Chief                  Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | May                  12, 2006                                            |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

YVONNE MICHELLE ELIZONDO,

Appellant,

v.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00162-CV

Appeal from the

210th District Court

FABENS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, §

of El Paso County, Texas

Appellee. §

(TC# 2010-3555)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

VAHAN JALADIAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. A. HUGHES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CIV S -04-1304 LKK CMK P

ORDER

Defendants have requested a 10-day extension of time to and including October 17,

2005, to file their motion for summary judgment. The court finds good cause for the request. 

Defendants shall file and serve their motion for summary judgment on or before October 17,

2005.

 October 12, 2005

 

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01304-LKK -CMK Document 31 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 64896.

#### Alfred H. Marzolf et al. *v.*United States,

protests 329874-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 8, 2020

t0831 

# Order

Clerk September 8, 2020

160605 & (50)

PERI ROANNE WEINGRAD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 160605

COA: 342873

Washtenaw PC: 17

- 000520

- CZ

CONSTANCE JONES,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for

relief is DENIED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK PAYNE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1585 MCE KJM P

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed his second request for an extension of time to file a second

amended complaint pursuant to the court’s order of May 5, 2005. Good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 28, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a

second amended complaint.

DATED: July 26, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

payn1585.36a

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 12 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ALLAN PETERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2345 FCD GGH P

vs.

A. TEDFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

All parties have stipulated that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, this action

is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)

DATED: 5/25/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

pete2345.59

 

Case 2:04-cv-02345-FCD-GGH Document 38 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit (13) a.

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

AS ENACTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the annual report on Form 20-F of Komatsu, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kunio Noji, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (s) 1350, 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.

Date: June 30, 2008



By:

/S/ KUNIO NOJIKunio NojiPresident, Chief Executive Officer




28
No. 56453.

protests 143258-K, etc. (New York).

#### Axel Fabrics, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*417Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven silk fabrics, valued at more than $5.50 per pound, the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). Accepting the stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise imported or withdrawn from warehouse prior to January 1, 1948, is dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 1205, as modified by T. D. 48316, and that which was imported or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to said date is dutiable at 25 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802.
Reap. Dec. 10081.

#### Hospitaline, Inc. *v.*United States,

Motion by plaintiff.
hifr-ex101_434.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

SECOND AMENDMENT

to Tenth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement

(McAllen Lease)

September 29, 2016

 

This Second Amendment to the Tenth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement (the “Second Amendment”) between Sharyland Distribution and Transmission Services, L.L.C. (“Lessor”) and Sharyland Utilities, L.P. (“Lessee”) is executed and delivered on September 29, 2016 and is effective as of September 22, 2016.  Capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined will have the meanings assigned to such terms in the McAllen Lease (as defined below).

 

WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee are Parties to a Third Amended and Restated Lease Agreement (McAllen System) dated as of December 1, 2014 (as amended from time to time in accordance with its terms, the “McAllen Lease”);

 

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2016, the Parties executed the Tenth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement (McAllen Lease) effective as of January 1, 2016 (the “Tenth Amended Supplement”);

 

WHEREAS, on June 20, 2016, the Parties executed the First Amendment to the Tenth Amended Supplement in order to update the ERCOT Transmission Rate Allocation effective as of June 13, 2016; and

 

WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to further amend the Tenth Amended Supplement as set forth herein.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree to the following:

 

1.Amendment.  The table titled “ERCOT Transmission Rate Allocation” is hereby amended by deleting the table in its entirety and replacing the same with the following:

 

ERCOT Transmission Rate


	
Allocation:
	
before June 20, 2013:  100%

	
 
	
between June 20 and October 17, 2013:  27.8%

	
 
	
between October 17, 2013 and February 25, 2014:  11.8%

	
 
	
between February 25, 2014 and May 1, 2014:  8.2%

	
 
	
between May 1, 2014 and October 3, 2014:  8.6%

	
 
	
between October 3, 2014 and March 31, 2015:  12.0%

	
 
	
between April 1, 2015 and October 31, 2015:  11.9%

	
 
	
between November 1, 2015 and June 13, 2016:  10.6%

	
 
	
between June 13, 2016 and September 22, 2016:  9.8%

	
 
	
starting September 22, 2016:  8.5%




 

2.Continuing Effect.  Except as expressly amended by this Second Amendment, the provisions of each of the McAllen Lease and the Tenth Amended Supplement are and shall remain in full force and effect.

[Signatures on Following Page]


McAllen Lease

 



The Parties have executed this Second Amendment as of the date set forth above.

 

 


	
 
	
SHARYLAND UTILITIES, L.P.




 


	
 
	
By:/s/ Greg Wilks

	
 
	
Name:Greg Wilks

	
 
	
Title:Chief Financial Officer




 

 


	
 
	
SHARYLAND DISTRIBUTION &

	
 
	
TRANSMISSION SERVICES, L.L.C.




 


	
 
	
By:/s/ Brant Meleski

	
 
	
Name:Brant Meleski

	
 
	
Title:Chief Financial Officer




 

McAllen Lease
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 20-6 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 20-6 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 20-6 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 20-6 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 20-6 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 20-6 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 20-6 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 7 of 7
#### Jane Best-Simpson et al., Respondents, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Defendants, and Metropolitan Transportation Authority Office of the Inspector General et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 535]

—In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for fraud, the defendants Metropolitan Transportation Authority Office of the Inspector General and Jeanette Woloszyn appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), entered May 27, 1994, as denied their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the appellants’ motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action is granted.

We disagree with the plaintiffs’ assertion that the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority Office of the Inspector General (hereinafter the OIG), is a separate and distinct entity from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the MTA). Public Authorities Law § 1279 (1) states, in relevant part, "There is hereby *created in the metropolitan transportation authority*an office of metropolitan transportation authority inspector general” (emphasis supplied). The legislative history of this provision establishes that it was proposed to establish *"within*the * * * (MTA) an inspector general’s office responsible for investigating * * * allegations of fraud and abuse” (Governor’s mem, L 1983, ch 427, 1983 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 2771; emphasis supplied). Thus, despite the statutory requirement that the OIG submit its annual report to the Governor and Legislature rather than to the MTA Board (Public Authorities Law § 1279 [6]), and despite the OIG appearing by separate counsel in the instant proceeding, given the plain meaning of the language of Public Authorities Law § 1279 (1), we find that the OIG is part of the MTA for the purpose of the one year and 30-day Statute of Limitations applicable to that agency (Public Authorities Law § 1276 [2]). Therefore, since employees of the OIG are employees of the *399MTA for this purpose, the Statute of Limitations applicable to the MTA is applicable to the defendant Jeanette Woloszyn who was sued solely in her former, official capacity as an employee of the OIG. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2011

t0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

142149 & (32)(33)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142149 COA: 298635 Kalamazoo CC: 2005-001534-FC JAMES HOWARD BELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 12, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to
remand and the motion for exte nsion of time are DENIED.
No. 58042.

protest 204836-K (Portland, Oreg.).

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

An examination of the papers in the case showing that the protest was not filed within the 60-day period provided by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the motion to dismiss was granted.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN H. SELLARS, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 116, 37 CMR 380

No. 20,115

June 23, 1967

*117
      *Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Major David J. Passamaneck,*and *Captain Kenneth J. Stuart*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick*and *Captain David E. Wilson*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FeRguson, Judge:

Tried by general court-martial and convicted of disrespect toward a superior officer, disrespect toward a superior noncommissioned officer, robbery, and breach of restriction, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 89, 91, 122, and 134, 10 USC §§ 889, 891, 922, 934, respectively, the accused was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for two years, and reduction. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed, and we granted his petition for review on the issue whether the law officer erred prejudicially in requiring Sellars to answer a court member’s question.

From the record, it appears accused elected to testify only with respect to the robbery charge and so limited his testimony. After he had detailed his version of the events, including travel off base, he was asked by a court member whether he was on pass. Although he invoked Code, supra, Article 31, 10 USC § 831, he was nonetheless required to answer the question. He admitted he had no authority to be absent. Such amounted to a judicial confession of the charged offense of breach of restriction.

In view of the accused’s election to limit his testimony, the requirement that he testify with regard to another offense constituted prejudicial error. United States v Marymont, 11 USCMA 745, 29 CMR 561; United States v Johnson, 11 USCMA 113, 28 CMR 337. It requires the conviction of breach of restriction to be set aside.

The decision of the board of review is reversed and the findings of guilty of Additional Charge I and its specification are set aside. Additional Charge I is ordered dismissed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. The •board of review may reassess the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-day concur.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

Reasonable Accommodation Resources

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/

1-800-669-3362 (Voice) 1-800-800-3302 (TT). The EEOC website has many free documents on

the applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders pertaining to disability discrimination,

reasonable accommodation, and undue hardship.

Job Accommodation Network (JAN): JAN provides free consultant services and provides 

guidance to employees and employers on workplace accommodations and disability issues, 

including individualized accommodation suggestions. JAN’s telephone number is 800-526-7234 

and website is https://askjan.org/index.cfm.

Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP): CAP provides free consultation 

and needs assessment services to Federal Government employees who are in need of assistive 

technology devices. CAP’s telephone number is 833-227-3272, videophone is 

571-384-5629, and website is https://www.cap.mil/. 

OPM Reasonable Accommodation Page: This page contains information on what reasonable 

accommodation is and provides information about the various executive orders issued pertaining 

to people with disabilities in the Federal Workforce. http://www.opm.gov/disability/reasonable

accommodation.asp. 

Department of Labor—Office of Disability Employment Policy: This page provides helpful 

links to information such as recruitment, hiring, and retention of individuals with disabilities, and 

best practices for having a disability-inclusive workforce and disability inclusion. 

http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/Employers.htm. 

Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability Inclusion (EARN): This website 

offers tools and resources designed to help employers build inclusive workplace cultures. Explore 

free online training opportunities on a variety of topics. http://www.askearn.org

FLETC Form 256-05-07 (01/20) Page 1 of 1
No. 51737.

#### Protest 110823-K of Edmundo Garza Garcia (Laredo).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

An examination of the official papers revealed that "the protest was not filed within the statutory period of 60 days after the date of liquidation, as required by section 514, .Tariff Act of 1930. The motion to dismiss was therefore granted.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KERRY ATKINSON, ) NO. CIV-S 04-2010 GEB (JFM)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER WITHDRAWING MOTION FOR 

) LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY AND

v. ) AMENDING STATUS (PRETRIAL

) SCHEDULING) ORDER

) 

)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE )

COMPANY, et al., )

Defendants. )

)

On May 27, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation requesting

that the Scheduling Order be modified so that the last hearing date

for a motion seeking leave to conduct discovery be moved from June 13,

2005, to July 13, 2005. The parties state this change is requested

because Plaintiff desires time to consider whether discovery is needed

after reviewing the administrative record and applicable plan

documents that Defendants provided to her on or around May 10, 2005

(collectively “Documents”).

Plaintiff already filed a motion for leave to conduct

discovery on May 10, 2005, but it is unclear whether Plaintiff is

entitled to discovery other than what is in the Documents. 

Case 2:04-cv-02010-GEB -JFM Document 17 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion is deemed withdrawn.

The Scheduling Order is modified such that the final date

for a hearing on a motion in which Plaintiff requests leave to conduct

discovery is August 15, 2005, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02010-GEB -JFM Document 17 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 52043.

#### Weil Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 960072-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10392)

Entry No. 736148.

#### Guggenheim Trading Corporation *v.*United States

(Decided December 10, 1962)

*Brooks*c£- *Brooks*for tbe plaintiff.

*Joseph JD. Quilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between tbe attorneys for tbe parties hereto, that tbe merchandise covered by tbe above mentioned appeal for reappraisement consists of certain wool fabrics imported from Prance, and that tbe said merchandise was appraised on an Export Value, as defined *482under the provisions of Section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, at invoice unit values less 3% plus cost of packing of $20.00.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the correct Export Value for the wool fabrics specified hereunder is the invoice unit value less 3% less 20% plus'pro-rated cost of packing of $20.00.

> Piece No. Yards

> 57899 61-7

> 57902 55

> 57906 56-6

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the correct Export Value for all other merchandise listed on the invoice is the invoice unit value less 3% plus pro-rated cost of packing of $20.00.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value for the wool fabrics specified hereunder is the invoice unit value, less 3 per centum, less 20 per centum, plus prorated cost of packing of $20, namely:

> Piece No. Yards

> 57899 61-7

> 57902 55

> 57906 56-6

I further find that the correct export value for all other merchandise listed on the invoice is the invoice unit value, less 3 per centum, plus prorated cost of packing of $20.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.