alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ed THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-895.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 12, 1972.

Public Defender’s Office, D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged and convicted by jury with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to serve a term of fifteen years in the State prison. Following his conviction, appellant appeals.

Appellant was represented at the trial by counsel other than the Public Defender, but the case was transferred to the Public Defender’s Office for appeal and they filed an “Anders” type brief, suggesting that there was no arguable error committed in the trial. This court entered its order pursuant to Leone v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 404. Appellant filed, in pro. per., a statement of the case and argued in effect that since the State failed to take fingerprints from the firearm he was in possession of they had failed to prove their case.

*78We have reviewed the entire transcript and testimony adduced at the trial and find this contention to be without merit.

In reviewing the record, we find that the State had fingerprinted appellant while in custody prior to trial without notifying appellant’s attorney. This does not constitute a denial of appellant’s constitutional rights. See Gentille v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 200.

No error having been made to appear, we therefore affirm.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5                   
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS              
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997 
<CASH>                        22,248
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                 32,052
<ALLOWANCES>                   1,599
<INVENTORY>                   40,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               8,953
<PP&E>                       145,325
<DEPRECIATION>                99,727
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               182,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         56,780
<BONDS>                       57,033
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                      800
<COMMON>                       2,172 
<OTHER-SE>                    62,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 182,596
<SALES>                       37,500 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              48,219
<CGS>                         21,836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 28,736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              31,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            (1,396)
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (13,660)
<INCOME-TAX>                     200 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (13,860) 
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                 (13,860) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (0.67)
        



</TABLE>
#### Jimmy Lee HUGHES et al. v. Marvin FITZHUGH and Mrs. Beatrice Fitzhugh.

No. 53083.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1973.

In re: Marvin Fitzhugh and Mrs. Beatrice Fitzhaugh applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Morehouse. 269 So. 2d 325.

Application not considered. Not timely filed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John FULFORD.

No. 54382.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1974.

In re: John Ful ford applying for mandamus, habeas corpus and other remedial writs.

Petition denied. The showing made is insufficient to warrant a remand of the case or the granting of other supervisory relief.
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D. C.  20549**

**** 

** FORM 10-Q/A**

**(Amendment No. 1)**

            [X]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

**** 

            For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009

OR

            [  ]  TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT 

 

For the transition period from

 __________to __________

 

Commission File No.               0-6404             

 

GATEWAY ENERGY CORPORATION

(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)

 

 

1415 Louisiana Street, Suite 4100

Houston, TX  77002

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(713) 336-0844

(Issuer's telephone number)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.                 Yes   X       No                            

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).          Yes   X    No          

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
#### SAMUEL VEACH *vs.*JOSEPH BAILIFF.

A commission to take depositions cannot be executed after the term to which it is re-turnable.

The deponent’s signature at the close, covers the entire deposition.

It i.- no objection that a sealed deposition is returned by the hands of a party.

Foreign attachment case.

Objection was made to the plaintiff’s commissions, on the following grounds:—1. That the depositions of the witnesses *in chief*were not signed. They were signed at the end of the cross examination; at least the name was there; but there was no certificate even of the commissioner, that they were signed. The certificate was merely “ attest,” Buffinson, commissioner. (2 *Daniels' Ch. Pr.,*485; 1 *Peere Wms.,*414.) 2. For irregularity of return. The commission was taken out on the 28th of April, returnable to May term, 1852, and was not executed until November, when the authority of the commission expired, and the commissioner had afterwards no power to take testimony. (2 *Daniels’ Ch. Prac.,*501, 514.) 3. Because the return was brought to court by the hands of a party to the suit.

*Mr.*Rodney.

Each page is signed by the witness, at the bottom; the first page embraces a part of the examination in chief, the others the cross examination. All were signed by the witness, and the signature attested by the commissioner. But if there were no signature but the one at the end, it would apply to the original, as well as the cross examination. The protection furnished by a signature on each page is greater than one made merely at the end of the examination in chief and the cross examination.

2. It is true that the commission was issued in April, returnable in May, and was not executed until after the May term; but it was because it could not be executed sooner; and if this is a sufficient objection, it would be almost impossible to get a commission executed in a foreign country, between the terms of court.

3. It is no objection in our practice that a commission executed and sealed up, is returned by the hands of a party. It is the duty of a party to see to the examination and return of his commission.

*Mr. Gcuthrie*

replied, that if more time was required to execute a commission than one vacation, it should not be made returnable at the next term but “sine dilatione.”

*The Court*

over-ruling the objections on the two other grounds, ruled out the deposition, because it was taken after the commission *380was returnable, and of course after the authority of the commissioner ceased.

*Rodney,*for plaintiff.

*Guthrie,*for defendant.

They suggested that perhaps this might be cured by a special continuance of the commission from term to term, or by a commission without special day of return.

Nonsuit.
Exhibit 99.02
                        ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE
                           MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A.
                     MBNA MASTER CREDIT CARD TRUST II


         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of MBNA
America Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), as Servicer pursuant to the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 4, 1994 (the "Pooling and
Servicing Agreement") by and between the Bank and The Bank of New York,
as trustee, (the "Trustee") does hereby certify that:

         1.  The Bank is Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement.

         2.  The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this
Certificate to the Trustee.

         3.  This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.05 of
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

         4.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the
twelve-month period ended June 30, 2003 was conducted under my
supervision.

         5.  Based on such review, the Servicer has, to my knowledge,
fully performed all its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement throughout such twelve-month period and no material default in
the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except
as set forth in paragraph 6 below.

         6.  The following is a description of each material default in
the performance of the Servicer's obligations under the provisions of
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement known to the undersigned to have
been made during such period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature
of each such default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to
remedy each such default and (iii) the current status of each such
default:

                          "None"


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
Certificate this 15th day of August 2003.



                                       /s/Douglas O. Hart
                               Name:   Douglas O. Hart
                               Title:  Senior Executive Vice President
#### In the Matter of Terence Boddie, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole et al., Respondents.

[735 NYS2d 781]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s request for parole release, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

This proceeding challenges the determination made by the Parole Board after a hearing held on November 17,1998, which was affirmed on appeal by the Division of Parole on July 19, 1999. On November 8, 2000, petitioner appeared before the Board for his next scheduled parole hearing and the Board, once again, denied parole. In view of petitioner’s reappearance before the Parole Board, the instant appeal is moot and must be dismissed (see, *Matter of Aviles v Travis,*282 AD2d 787; *Matter of Feneque v New York State Div. of Parole,*252 AD2d 469). Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
# Official Journal C 43/21 F

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 43 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4921 February 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 43

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4921 February 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 043/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 043/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4136 — Deutsche Post/Williams Lea) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 2 |
| 2006/C 043/3 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4045 — Deutsche Bahn/Bax Global) (1) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 043/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 043/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4136 — Deutsche Post/Williams Lea) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

2

2006/C 043/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4045 — Deutsche Bahn/Bax Global) (1)

3

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | European Parliament |
| 2006/C 043/4 | Decision | 4 |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 043/5 | Call for proposals — DG EAC 01/06 — Higher education reform (Lisbon strategy and Bologna process) (1) | 5 |

III   Notices

European Parliament

2006/C 043/4

Decision

4

Commission

2006/C 043/5

Call for proposals — DG EAC 01/06 — Higher education reform (Lisbon strategy and Bologna process) (1)

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 954

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage

of bone mass measurements for certain individuals under part B of

the medicare program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 17, 1993

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

for coverage of bone mass measurements for certain individuals under part B of the medicare program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Bone Mass

5 Measurement Coverage Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF BONE MASS MEASURE7 MENTS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social Secu9 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended—
2

HR 954 IH

1 (1) in subsection (s)—

2 (A) in paragraph (12)(C), by striking

3 ‘‘and’’ at the end,

4 (B) by striking the period at the end of

5 paragraph (14) and inserting ‘‘; and’’,

6 (C) by redesignating paragraphs (15) and

7 (16) as paragraphs (16) and (17), and

8 (D) by inserting after paragraph (14) the

9 following new paragraph:

10 ‘‘(15) bone mass measurement (as defined in

11 subsection (oo));’’; and

12 (2) by inserting after subsection (nn) the fol13 lowing new subsection:

14 ‘‘Bone Mass Measurement

15 ‘‘(oo)(1) The term ‘bone mass measurement’ means

16 a radiologic or radioisotopic procedure performed on a

17 qualified individual (as defined in paragraph (2)) for the

18 purpose of detecting bone loss through the use of single

19 and dual photon absorptiometry, dual energy X-ray

20 absorptiometry or similar dual energy techniques, or quan21 titative computed tomography, and includes a physician’s

22 interpretation of the results of the procedure.

23 ‘‘(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘quali24 fied individual’ means (in accordance with regulations pre25 scribed by the Secretary)—
3

HR 954 IH

1 ‘‘(A) an estrogen-deficient woman at clinical

2 risk for osteoporosis;

3 ‘‘(B) an individual with vertebral abnormalities;

4 ‘‘(C) an individual receiving long-term

5 glucocorticoid steroid therapy; or

6 ‘‘(D) an individual with primary

7 hyperparathyroidism.’’.

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Social Secu9 rity Act is amended by striking ‘‘paragraphs (15) and

10 (16)’’ each place it appears in sections 1864(a), 1865(a),

11 1902(a)(9)(C), and 1915(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) and inserting

12 ‘‘paragraphs (16) and (17)’’.

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

14 this section shall apply to bone mass measurements per15 formed on or after January 1, 1994.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
(the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 Company.
  /s/  Gerald D. KelferGerald D. KelferPresident and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21



        NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                               STATE OF INCORPORATION
        ------------------                               ----------------------
1.       First Option Health Plan                               New Jersey
         of New Jersey, Inc.

2.       First Option Health Plan of                            New York
         New York, Inc.

3.       First Option Health Plan of                            Pennsylvania
         Pennsylvania, Inc.

4.       First Option Health Plan                               Delaware
         of Delaware, Inc.

5.       First Option Health Plan of                            Maryland
         Maryland, Inc.

6.       FOHP Agency, Inc.                                      New Jersey

7.       First Option Dental, Inc.                              New Jersey
#### GEORGE HAMMER *vs.*ELIAS PIERCE.

Trespass lies by a father for a forcible injury to his ton, *per quad,*&c.

Trespass assault and battery, *per quad,*the plaintiff lost the services of his son.

The action was for injuries to the plaintiff’s son, by a blow from the defendant.

*Bradford,*for plaintiff.

Rogers, for defendant.

*Mr. Rogers,*for the defendant,

raised and argued the question as to the form of action, contending that, on principle, it should be in case and not trespass. He cited 12 *Com. Law Rep,*131; 13 *Ibid*94; but

*The Court,*

without hearing *Bradford*contra, decided that the action was well brought; and the plaintiff had a verdict.
From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]

Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:47 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: Andrew Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Smith; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson;

Carlos Siqueiros; Caskey, John; Chad Kennedy; Chris Brown; Creevy, Jim; Dan

Cohen; Daniel Young; Eduardo Robles; Edwards, Brenda; Eric Peterson; Freeman,

Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Rosenquist; Jenn ifer Tiedeman; Jerry Schoen; Jim

Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; Katie Coughlin; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine

Savitz; Meg Waltner; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Polinski,

Raymond; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul;

Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Patzner; Thomas

Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Vijay Te ndulkar; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: Re: LV Transformer Call;

Wrong attachment, please refer to this one.

Thank you,

‐ Chris

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Christopher Bolduc <cabolduc@lbl.gov> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,

>

> As requested, attached are the draft NIA results by efficiency level

> with bot h ZDMH, and SA1 excluded from the analysis.

>

> Thank you,

> ‐ Chris Bolduc

>

> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Richard Parker

> <richardparkerdc@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Dear Colleagues,

>>

>> Attached hot off the press are the updated and revised LCC/PBB and

>> NIA res ults for low voltage transformers, DL 6

‐ 8, with engineering

>> scatterplots included. Please note that a new TSL (TSL 7) has been

>> added to reflect the NEMA premium EL. You will see that the TSL

>> numbering system is not listed in order of increasing stringency.

>>

>> See you on the ca ll at 2:00 pm on Monday, Nov. 28.

>>

>> All best,

>> RIchard Parker

>> Facilitator

>>

>

>

>

> ‐‐

>

> ‐‐‐‐

> Chris Bolduc

> Energy Efficiency Standards Group> Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National

> Laboratory t. 416

‐ 535

‐ 7546 c. 647

‐ 832

‐ 4021

>

‐‐

‐‐‐‐

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

t. 416

‐ 535

‐ 7546 c. 647

‐ 832

‐ 4021
United States Department of Agriculture Rural Housing

Ginnie Mae’s mortgage-backed securities (MBS) program creates liquidity worldwide to finance

USDA Rural Housing-insured or guaranteed mortgage lending. This supports single-family and 

multifamily housing, rental housing, and community-based real estate assets, including hospitals, 

nursing homes, and childcare centers in rural parts of the United States. In Fiscal Year 2021, Rural 

Housing-insured or guaranteed mortgage loans accounted for approximately 4.8% of all newly

issued MBS. 

Rural Housing loans are integral to the economy and quality of life in rural communities, often being

the most affordable and efficient available mortgage. 

For more information on the USDA Rural Housing mortgage programs, please visit

https://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/agencies/rural-housing-service.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6618

MICHAEL ANTHONY DUNCAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BISHOP ROBINSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-97-692-JFM)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Duncan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Duncan v. Robinson, No. CA-97-692-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 19,

1997). 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
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.

 

October 9, 2019

Order 

Clerk

October 9, 2019

160337(27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 160337

v COA: 348562

Wayne CC: 12-003375-FC

BRANDON LEWIS CAIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to exceed the page 

limitation for his application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The application submitted 

on October 7, 2019, is accepted for filing.
261 La. 1063

#### Raymond W. PIAZZA v. HOUSTON FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 52474.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1972.

In re: Raymond Piazza applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Avoyelles. 260 So.2d 41.

Writ denied: On the facts found by the previous courts, we find no error of law. The issues are chiefly factual.

DIXON, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. There is hardly any factual dispute, and the conclusions reached by the Courts below appear to be errone-