alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J-A07021-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INT. OF: K.M.W., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: K.W.R., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1537 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Decree Entered August 23, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 13-AD-2019

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2020

Appellant, K.M.W. (“Mother”), appeals from the August 23, 2019 Decree 

that involuntarily terminated her parental rights to K.M.W. (“Child”) and 

changed Child’s permanency goal to Adoption. Upon review, we are 

constrained to quash this appeal pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker, 

185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), and deny counsel’s Application to Strike Trial Court 

Docket Number and to Clarify Notice of Appeal (“Application to Strike”). 

A detailed recitation of the procedural and factual history is unnecessary 

to our disposition. On October 9, 2019, Mother filed a single Notice of Appeal 

listing both the dependency and adoption docket numbers (Docket Nos. 13 AD 

2019 and CP-22-DP-98-2016). Thereafter, both Mother and the trial court 

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Initially, we must address the fact that Mother filed a single Notice of 

Appeal for her appeals at two separate lower court docket numbers. In 
J-A07021-20

- 2 -

June 2018, our Supreme Court disapproved of the common practice of filing 

a single notice of appeal from an order or judgment involving more than one 

docket number. See generally Walker, supra. The Court observed that 

“the proper practice under [Pa.R.A.P.] 341(a) is to file separate appeals from 

an order that resolves issues arising on more than one docket.” Walker, 185 

A.3d at 977. Accordingly, the Court determined, “[t]he failure to do so 

requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. See also Matter of

M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 981 (Pa. Super. 2019) (holding that when an appellant 

files a single notice of appeal from two separate dockets–dependency and 

adoption–Walker compels quashal).

In this case, Mother filed a single Notice of Appeal from an order 

involving two separate docket numbers. Mother’s appeal postdates the 

Walker and Matter of MP decisions. Accordingly, we are constrained to 

quash this appeal.

Appeal quashed. Application to Strike denied. Case stricken from 

argument list. 

Judge McLaughlin joins the memorandum.

Judge Olson concurs in result.
J-A07021-20

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/21/2020
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 447 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 447

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 9, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4539) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United 
States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for 
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: 
beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 4, line 6, through ``Treasury'' on line 9; 
and page 87, line 3, through page 88, line 2. Where points of order are waived 
against only part of a paragraph, a point of order against matter in the balance 
of the paragraph may be applied only within the balance of the paragraph and not 
against the entire paragraph. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution the Committee on 
Appropriations may file a supplemental report on H.R. 4539 as part 2 of House 
Report 103-534.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Lewis BESS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-108.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 9, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                TO LOAN AGREEMENT



Pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Loan Agreement,  this Amendment No. 1 to the Loan
Agreement dated as of August 11, 1997, is hereby amended as of June 30, 1998, as
follows:

The definition of "Termination Date" set forth in Section 1, Definitions, of the
Loan Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following
definition to read as follows:


         "Termination Date" means August 15, 1999, unless extended or terminated
earlier pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  each of the parties hereto has duly executed or caused this
Amendment No. 1 to be duly executed by its authorized officer as of the date and
year first written above.



                                BORROWER:


                                /s/  Anthony M. Marlon
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Anthony M. Marlon, M.D.



                                LENDER:

                                SIERRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.



                                By:   /s/  Erin E. MacDonald
                                -----------------------------------------
                                Title: President and COO
Exhibit 32


                              Section 1350 Certifications


                         STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned is the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Newsearch, Inc.
This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. This Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Newsearch, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

The undersigned certifies that such 10-KSB Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Newsearch, Inc. as of December 31, 2005.

This Certification is executed as of June 20, 2006.

                                /s/ Dean Wicker
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                    Dean Wicker
                                    Director, CEO, President and CFO
                                    (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to us and will be retained by Newsearch, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2021338EN.01002301.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/23

---

Order of the General Court of 8 July 2021 — Mendes de Almeida v Council

(Case T-75/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 - Appointment of the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Portugal - Period for instituting proceedings - Starting point of the period for instituting proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 338/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ana Mendes de Almeida (Sobreda, Portugal) (represented by: R. Leandro Vasconcelos and M. Marques de Carvalho, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak, R. Meyer, K. Kouri and J. Gil, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1117 of 27 July 2020 appointing the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2020 L 244, p. 18), in so far as it appoints Mr Moreira Alves d’Oliveira Guerra as European Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office as temporary agent at grade AD 13 for a non-renewable period of three years from 29 July 2020.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to rule on the request for an expedited procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on the request for an expedited procedure.

| 3. | There is no longer any need to rule on the cross-claim made by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no longer any need to rule on the cross-claim made by the Council.

| 4. | Ms Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Ms Ana Carla Mendes de Almeida is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
# C_2021217EN.01002101.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 March 2021 — RW v Österreichische Post AG

(Case C-154/21)

(2021/C 217/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RW

Defendant: Österreichische Post AG

Question referred

Is Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the right of access is limited to information concerning categories of recipient where specific recipients have not yet been determined in the case of planned disclosures, but that right must necessarily also cover recipients of those disclosures in cases where data has already been disclosed?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---
#### IN THE CASE OF JOSHUA T. SEAL.

A petitioner cannot have the benefit of the insolvent laws unless he be actually in prison.

If the sheriff permit a voluntary escape, he cannot retake the prisoner.

Application to be discharged under the insolvent laws.

The petitioner set forth that he was imprisoned in the common jail of New-Castle county, on execution process, for debt; that he was insolvent; and prayed to be discharged on assigning his property for the benefit of his creditors. He returned debts to a large amount.

*J. A. Bayard,*for petitioner.

*Wales*and *Hamilton,*for creditors.

When the case came up for hearing on the return of the summons, it appeared to the court that the petitioner was at large, walking the streets and attending the court as a spectator. He stated that he was at large by the permission of the sheriff. The court refused to go further into the case, and dismissed the petition. *Big.*306. The petitioner is not in prison, and cannot be there again, legally, on this process. The sheriff has permitted a voluntary escape, and cannot retake him. The chief justice mentioned *Crocker’s*case, in Kent, and Mr. Hamilton that of *John Lowber,*in New-Castle, where the same decision was made.

Petition dismissed.
#### DUNLOP *v.*WARDEN OF MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

[App. No. *7,*(Adv.).]

September Term, 1962

*Decided June 18, 1962.*

Before the full Court.

Per Curiam.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of post conviction relief. Other grounds for relief were asserted below, but the only claim here is that the judgment and sentence are void because the indictment was defective.

The applicant, whose true surname is Dunlap, was indicted and convicted of assault with intent to murder under the name of Clarence Dunlop. A question as to the erroneous spelling of the name was not raised at the trial, but the evidence was such as to sufficiently identify the defendant as one of the perpetrators of the crime.

The misnomer of a defendant is not fatal to an indictment *620if there is no question as to the identity of the accused, and the defect may be cured by interlineation on a motion to amend. *Lank v. State,*219 Md. 433. See also *Romans v. State,*178 Md. 588.

In the instant case, the defendant was not only orally apprised of the charge against him under the name of Clarence Dunlop when he was arraigned, but had previously been served with a written copy of the indictment in which his name was misspelled. And since he made no effort then to correct the defect, it was too late to do it in this post conviction proceeding where a defective indictment is not open to review. See *Wilson v. Warden,*222 Md. 580.

*Application denied.*
#### Gerald A. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-70.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

June 4, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

COMPANY:  Global Marine Inc. (the "Company")

ITEM:     Resolutions of the Compensation Committee
          of the Board of Directors

SUBJECT:  Modification of Performance Stock Awards

DATE:     August 16, 2001

          RESOLVED that the terms of each performance stock award granted and
currently outstanding under the Company's 1998 Stock Option and Incentive Plan
be and hereby are modified to the extent necessary to authorize and effect the
removal of all conditions, contingencies and other restrictions from the shares
of stock subject to said award and the vesting, issuance and delivery of said
shares in the event of a change in control pursuant to the terms of those
certain severance and employment agreements approved and authorized by the
Company's Board of Directors on August 16, 2001; and it was further

          RESOLVED that the proper officers of the Company be and hereby are
authorized and directed to do or cause to be done any and all such acts and
things, make any and all such payments, and negotiate, execute and deliver, for
and on behalf of the Company and in its name, any and all such documents,
papers, instruments and agreements as they may deem necessary or desirable to
effect the intent and purposes of these resolutions.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                             HARBINGER CORPORATION

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Three Months Ended
                                                           --------------------------------
                                                                      March 31,
                                                           --------------------------------
                                                                1997               1996
                                                           -------------      -------------
<S>                                                        <C>                <C>
PRIMARY

Weighted average common stock outstanding                    18,930,000         17,903,000
                                                                               
Net effect of dilutive stock options and warrants                              
    - based on the treasury method                                    -                  -
                                                           ------------        -----------   
    Total                                                    18,930,000         17,903,000
                                                           =============       ===========

Loss before extraordinary item applicable to                                   
    common shareholders                                    $(13,303,000)       $(9,042,000)
Extraordinary loss on debt extinguishment                    (2,419,000)                 -
                                                           ------------        -----------   
Net loss applicable to common shareholders                 $(15,722,000)       $(9,042,000)
                                                           =============       ===========
Loss per share applicable to common                                            
    shareholders before extraordinary item                 $      (0.70)       $     (0.51)
Extraordinary loss per share on debt extinguishment               (0.13)                 -
                                                           ------------        -----------   
Net loss per share applicable to common shareholders       $      (0.83)       $     (0.51)
                                                           ============        ===========
</TABLE>

Computational note:

      In connection with the computations for 1997 and 1996, all common share
      equivalents have been excluded because their impact on the Company's net
      loss per share is antidilutive.

                                   FORM 10-Q
                                 PAGE 18 OF 18
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 0 2 2 0

- 1 3

E X P A R T E R A H U L S U D H A K A R

, A p p e l l e e

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E F O U R T E E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T B E N D C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m

.

O P I N I O N

P u r s u a n t t o a p l e a a g r e e m e n t

, t h e A p p e l l e e p l e d g u i l t y i n 2 0 0 9 t o p o s s e s s i o n o f a

c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e

. I n 2 0 1 1

, h e f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s c l a i m i n g

t h a t h i s c o u n s e l p r o v i d e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e b y f

a i l i n g t o a d v i s e h i m o f t h e d e p o r t a t i o n

c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h i s g u i l t y p l e a

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d r e l i e f a n d t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

a f f i r m e d

. E x p a r t e S u d h a k a r

, N o

. 1 4

- 1 1

- 0 0 7 0 1

- C R ( T e x

. A p p

. - H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h D i s t

. ] 2 0 1 2 )

.

T h e S t a t e h a s f

i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w c o n t e n d i n g t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s e r r e di n h o l d i n g t h a t P a d i l l a v

. K e n t u c k y

, 5 5 9 U

. S

. 3 5 6 ( 2 0 1 0 )

, a p p l i e s r e t r o a c t i v e l y t o t h e c o l l a t e r a l

r e v i e w o f a s t a t e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t w a s f i n a l w h e n t h e P a d i l l a o p i n i o n w a s i s s u e d

. T h e S t a t e

p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e U

. S

. S u p r e m e C o u r t r e c e n t l y h e l d t h a t

, u n d e r T e a g u e v

. L a n e

, 4 8 9 U

. S

.

2 8 8 ( 1 9 8 9 )

, P a d i l l a d o e s n o t h a v e r e t r o a c t i v e e f f e c t

. C h a i d e z v

. U

n i t e d S t a t e s

, 1 3 3 S

. C t

. 1 1 0 3

( 2 0 1 3 )

. W e a d o p t e d t h a t C o u r t ’ s r e a s o n i n g a s a m a t t e r o f s t a t e l a w i n E x p a r t e D e L o s R e

y e s

,

N o

. P D

- 1 4 5 7

- 1 1

,

_ _ S

. W

. 3 d

_ _ ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. M a r c h 2 0

, 2 0 1 3 )

.

T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e d i d n o t h a v e t h e b e n e f i t o f o u r o p i n i o n i n E

x

p a r t e D e L o s R e

y e s

. T h e r e f

o r e

, w e g r a n t t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

, v a c a t e

t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

, a n d r e m a n d t h i s c a s e t o t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s i n l i g h t

o f E x p a r t e D e L o s R e

y e s

.

D e l i v e r e d A p r i l 1 7

, 2 0 1 3

D o N o t P u b l i s h
#### James NORDHEIM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-436.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 12, 1972.

James Nordheim, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme *175Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
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
  
    
    The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the
period ended January 31, 2011, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
    
    The information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Company.
  /s/ Robert A. VirtueRobert A. VirtuePresident, Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Robert E. DoseVice President  Finance, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
H. Res. 521

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

August 17, 1994.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (S. 2182) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year

1995 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for

military construction, and for defense programs of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such

fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. All

points of order against the conference report and against its

consideration are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Cecil RHYNE, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. R-200.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 24, 1973.

Ben H. Wilkinson and Carl R. Pennington, Jr., of Pennington & Wilkinson, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roger W. Foote, Tallahassee, for respondent.

*227PER CURIAM.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, is hereby denied.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.