alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BENDELL GILL, Airman First Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

19 USCMA 93, 41 CMR 93

No. 22,398

November 28, 1969

*Colonel Bertram Jacobson*was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused. *Colonel James M. Bumgarner*and *Major Donald B. Strickland*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FeRGüson, Judge:

The accused was convicted by general court-martial, convened in the Federal Republic of Germany, of the offense of robbery of two German nationals. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, confinement at hard labor for six months, and reduction. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed *94the findings and sentence without change.1 We granted review to determine the validity of the accused’s conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969).

Authority for trial by court-martial in the Federal Republic of Germany is contained in the NATO Status of Forces Agreement.

In United States v Keaton, 19 USCMA 64, 41 CMR 64, we held that all offenses coming within the purview of the Uniform Code of Military Justice committed in a foreign country were triable by court-martial in that country. See also United States v Easter, 19 USCMA 68, 41 CMR 68; United States v Stevenson, 19 USCMA 69, 41 CMR 69. For the reasons stated in those opinions, equally applicable, here, the constitutional limitations on court-martial jurisdiction referred to in O’Callahan v Parker, supra, do not deprive a court-martial of jurisdiction when trial is held in a foreign country.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Judge DARDEN concurs in the result.

1

 The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the accused directed that he serve his confinement in the 3320th Retraining Group, Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado.
#### West Shore Builders, Inc., Respondent, v Jud Staller et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[634 NYS2d 244]

—Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Tait, Jr., J.), entered October 11, 1994 in Madison County, which denied a motion by defendants Jud Staller and Donna Staller for a default judgment on their counterclaims.

In June 1992, defendants Jud Staller and Donna Staller (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) entered into a contract with plaintiff whereby plaintiff was to perform extensive renovations to put an addition onto defendants’ home. Following many disputes between the parties concerning the scope, quality and cost of the work, plaintiff ultimately filed a mechanic’s lien against defendants’ home. Plaintiff then commenced this action to foreclose the lien. On May 13, 1994, defendants served their answer which included, *inter alia,*three counterclaims against plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff’s time to reply to the counterclaims expired with plaintiff neither serving a reply nor requesting an extension of time within which to do so. On September 23, 1994, defendants moved for a default judgment on their counterclaims. In response to this motion plaintiff requested an extension of time to reply, submitted a proposed reply and included an affidavit from its attorney asserting that a "clerical error” in noting the date the response to the counterclaims was due caused the failure to reply. Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion and directed them to accept service of the proposed reply. This appeal by defendants ensued.

We reverse. Assuming, arguendo, that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2005 by accepting the assertion by plaintiff’s counsel that the error in properly diarying the reply deadline constituted excusable " law office failure’ ” *(but see, People ex rel. Abrams v Scudds,*195 AD2d 778, 779), defendants correctly point out that plaintiff was still required to "make an adequate showing that [its] claim has legal merit” *(Oversby v Linde Div. of Union Carbide Corp.,*121 AD2d 373). Here, the affidavit from plaintiff’s counsel makes no mention of the subject of merit. Moreover, since the complaint is not verified *(cf, Iovine v Caldwell,*215 AD2d 977, 978; *see, Matter of Waite v Whalen,*215 AD2d 922, 924) and there is no other competent proof in the record to support plaintiff’s position, we conclude that Supreme Court was deprived of discretion to extend the time for plaintiff’s reply *{see, Dime Sav. Bank v Halo,*210 AD2d 572, 573).

Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, mo*882tion granted and default judgment awarded to defendants Jud Staller and Donna Staller on their counterclaims.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 4, 2021

NO. 03

- 19

- 00176

- CR

Dustin Ray Randig, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODW IN, BAKER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in

the judgment

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Because

appellant is indigent a nd u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4791 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4791

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the consideration of 
 continuity of health care in determining best medical interest under 
      the Veterans Community Care Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2024

  Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Moran, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. 
Tillis, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Thune, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Scott of 
  Florida, and Mrs. Fischer) introduced the following bill; which was 
     read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the consideration of 
 continuity of health care in determining best medical interest under 
      the Veterans Community Care Program, 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 ``Ensuring Continuity in Veterans 
Health Act''.

SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUITY OF HEALTH CARE UNDER VETERANS 
              COMMUNITY CARE PROGRAM.

    Section 1703(d)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(F) Continuity of care.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6322

HERMAN C. NEWMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-01-886-2)

Submitted: June 6, 2003 Decided: July 9, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman C. Newman, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Herman C. Newman, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation to deny relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from a final order in a

§ 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Newman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Operators Manual

http://download.djiinnovations. com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf Safety Guidelines http://download.dji - innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Safety_Guidelines_Disclaimer_en.pdf Battery Guidel ines http://download.dji
innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-442]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-378-001]


Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

January 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 3, 2007, Minnesota Energy Resources 
Corporation (MERC) tendered for filing initial transportation rates 
approved by Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for the services most 
comparable to the services provided by MERC to its customer, Aquila, to 
be used to serve Aquila's 11 residential customers in Iowa.
    MERC states that the filing is being made in compliance with the 
Commission's order issued on November 30, 2006.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a 
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c98f8c9b8a86a7a5a0a7ac9abcb9b9a6bbbd89afacbbaae7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4a2a1b6a7ab8a888d8a81b79194948b9690a482819687ca838b92">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 29, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-442 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4044]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 2, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (David Tatum, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Greene County Bancshares, Inc., Greenville, Tennessee, to merge 
with Civitas BankGroup, Inc., Franklin, Tennessee, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Cumberland Bank, Franklin, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 2, 2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-4044 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Order entered January 31, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01355-CV

MORRISON FAMILY TRUST, KEN MORRISON, TRUSTEE, INDIVIDUALLY, 

STONECOAT OF TEXAS, LLC, STONECOAT, LP AND STONECOAT GP, LLC,

Appellants

V.

PHILIPPE MERGAUX, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-00790

ORDER

We REINSTATE the appeal. 

After this appeal was submitted, appellee filed a voluntary petition under chapter 7 of the 

United States Bankruptcy Code. We abated the appeal on February 22, 2018 pending further 

notification from the parties. 

On January 21, 2020, the Court received appellants’ and the chapter 7 Trustee for

appellee’s agreed motion to set aside, remand, and instruct the district court to enter an agreed 

amended final judgment. Attached to the motion is the agreed order lifting the automatic stay 

from the bankruptcy court signed November 5, 2019. 

An opinion will issue in due course. 
/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
No. 54661.

#### Advanced Ring Manufacturers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 145941-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan*cfe *Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D.. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99



                         [CORUS BANKSHARES LETTERHEAD]



March 25, 2002


To the Securities and Exchange Commission:


Our auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") have represented to us that their
audit was subject to their quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of
national office consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
Andersen is not relevant to this audit.



/s/ Tim H. Taylor
--------------------------------
      Tim H. Taylor
Executive Vice President and
 Chief Financial Officer
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


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Cheviot  Financial  Corp.  (the
"Company"),  on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date of this  Certification  (the
"Report"),  I, Scott T. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Cheviot  Financial  Corporation  and will be  retained  by Cheviot
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



                                                     /s/Scott T. Smith
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Scott T. Smith
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

         Date:  November 13, 2008
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Michael Schaffer, certify that:

I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Case Financial, Inc;

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this Annual 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 Annual report;

The registrant's other certifying officers' and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and 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 company, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
company's internal control over financial reporting; and

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



                             /s/ Michael Schaffer
                             -------------------------------
                             Michael Schaffer
                             Chief Executive Officer
                             January 11, 2008