alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 01-1200WA

_____________ Shirley Syrus, * * Appellant, * On Appeal from the United * States District Court v. * for the Western District * of Arkansas. Harborview Mercy Psychiatric * Hospital, * [Not To Be Published] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 11, 2001 Filed: July 26, 2001

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Shirley Syrus appeals the District Court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her race, disability, and religious discrimination case against Harborview Mercy Psychiatric Hospital, her former employer. Syrus was terminated after she violated her employer’s policies several times during her ninety-day probationary period.-2-

We agree with the District Court that Ms. Syrus’s claims of religious and disability discriminationwere barred because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to both claims. See Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works , 21 F.3d 218, 222-23 (8th Cir. 1994) (prior to filing federal lawsuit, Title VII plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies by filing timely EEOC charge and receiving notice of right to sue; plaintiff will be deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies as to allegations that are like or reasonably related to substance of charge). As to the race discriminationclaim, which was administratively exhausted, we see nothing in the recordtending to show that Harborview’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Ms. Syrus was pretextual. Thus, the District Court properly rejected this claim on its merits. See Rose-Maston v. NME Hosps., Inc., 133 F.3d 1104, 1108-09 (8thCir. 1998). The Court also did not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel. See Stevens v. Redwing , 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review; relevant factors). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Mrs. Elsie Granier ACOSTA, widow of Sterling Acosta, Sr. v. Francis HOTARD.

No. 53516.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1973.

In re: Francis Hotard applying for certi-orari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles. 274 So.2d 859.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.

DIXON, J.,

is of the opinion that the Court of Appeal was not correct; C.C. 2047 permits the action taken by the district judge.
Exhibit 21

Video Display Corporation
Subsidiary Companies

|Lexel Imaging Systems, Inc.
1501 Newtown Pike
Lexington, Kentucky                                                   |  | Aydin Displays, Inc.
1 Riga Lane
Birdsboro, Pennsylvania           
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Fox International Ltd., Inc.
23600 Aurora Road
Bedford Heights, Ohio                                                |  | Mengel Industries, Inc.
3110 West Ridge Pike
Sanatoga, Pennsylvania
|Southwest Vacuum Devices, Inc.
1868 Tucker Industrial Drive
Tucker, Georgia                                         |  | XKD Corporation
18450 Technology Drive
Morgan Hill, California     
|Video Display (Europe), Ltd.
Unit 5 Old Forge Trading Estate
Dudley Road, Stourbridge
West Midlands DY9 8EL
England |  |                                                                    
|Magna View, Inc.
1240 Profit Drive
Dallas, Texas                                                                    |  |                                                                    
|Z-Axis, Inc.
15 Eagle Street
Phelps, New York                                                                       |  |                                                                    
|Teltron Technologies, Inc.
2 Riga Lane
Birdsboro, PA                                                                |  |                                                                    

F-32

---

QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Terrence Curry, Appellant, v Roy Girdich, as Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 640]

Appeal *913from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered July 18, 2001 in Franklin County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

On January 30, 2001, petitioner was convicted of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of 4V2 to 9 years. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding contending that the underlying indictment was fatally defective due to various alleged shortcomings, including the failure to name him in the body of the indictment, the failure to list his last known address and the lack of a signature by the foreperson of the grand jury or the District Attorney. Supreme Court denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.

The. issues raised by petitioner are issues that could have been raised on direct appeal from his criminal conviction or in the context of a CPL article 440 motion; hence, his application for a writ of habeas corpus is inappropriate and was properly denied (see, *People ex rel. Brown v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*252 AD2d 602; *People ex rel. Rodriguez v Kuhlmann,*239 AD2d 721, *lv denied*90 NY2d 808). The fact that petitioner bases his application upon allegations of jurisdictional defects in the underlying indictment does not dictate a departure from this rule (see, *People ex rel. Rada v Goord,*274 AD2d 795; *People ex rel. Gonzalez v Bennett,*263 AD2d 565, *lv denied*94 NY2d 753).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Stefan A. Bird,  President of Salton Sea Funding Corporation (the "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the  Company  for the  quarterly
         period ended  September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2) the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  November 6, 2003



                               /s/ Stefan A. Bird
                            -------------------------
                                 Stefan A. Bird
                                    President
                            (chief executive officer)
Exhibit
32.1







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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Coates International, Ltd. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”),
I, George J. Coates, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge, the Company’s Form 10-Q 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 the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.











May 14,
      2008
              
              /s/ George
      J. CoatesGeorge
      J. CoatesPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Inquiries 
 R. Kirk Morgan 

Actua 
 267-778-4042 
 IR@actua.com 

Actua Announces Total Liquidating Distributions of $17.82 per share 

Original guidance was between $15.69 - $16.96 per share 

Wayne, PA – (October 24, 2022 ) – Actua Corporation made a final liquidating distribution of $0.201 per share on October 21, 2022
bringing the total liquidating distributions to $17.82 per share as compared to the original guidance of between $15.69 to $16.96 per share. Capital returned to shareholders through these liquidating distributions and share repurchases prior to the
dissolution period totals approximately $730 million. 
 This final liquidating distribution concludes Actua Corporation’s periodic reporting
under the Act and Actua will not make any additional liquidating distributions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          31,457
<SECURITIES>                                     6,039
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,496
<PP&E>                                             255
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,296,752
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,128,370
<COMMON>                                       143,431
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,751
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,006
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                107,151
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                             (2,859,234)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,819,013)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
ACCEPTED

01-15-01089-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/29/2015 10:23:21 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/29/2015 10:23:21 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
#### Irwin J. STONE, Appellant, v. Douglas A. SINCLAIR, d/b/a Renella Motel, Appellee.

No. 74-46.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: D.L.

- P.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: J.C.(A.)G., NATURAL

MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 266 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: T.R.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: J.C.(A.)G., NATURAL

MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 267 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: T.L.L.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: J.C.(A.)G., NATURAL

MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 268 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S T E VE N V L AS I C H, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. B U R T H O F F M A N , D r . , i ndi vi dua l l ya nd i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 17311 D . C . N o . 1 : 9 9 - c v - 0 6 4 7 2 - O WW WMW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O l i ve rW . W a nge r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r25, 2011 ** B efo re: T R O T T , G O U L D , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S t even V l as i ch, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e ntf

ol l ow i ng aj urytr i a l i n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o hi s s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 

# FI LED NO V 02 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 17311 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r ev iew fo r a n ab u se o f d iscr etio n th e d istrict co u rt’s e v id e n tia ryru lin g s . N

at i on w i de T

ransp. Fi n. v. Cass I

nf o. Sys. , Inc. , 523 F . 3d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 7 - 5 8 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bye xc l udi ng t e s t i m onyf r om S h u s te ra n d R o d r ig u e z b e c au s e it w a s irr e le v a n t a n dc u m u la tiv e . See F e d. R . E vi d. 4 0 1 - 0 2 , 7 0 1 - 0 2 ; L ut

zv . G le ndale U

ni on Hi gh Sc h. , 40 3 F . 3d 10 61 , 10 71 (9th C i r. 2005) ( “ [ T ] he di s tr i c tc ourtha s br oa d author i tyt o l i m i tthe num be rof w i tne s s e s on ap a rtic u la rp o in t to a v o idc u m u la tiv e e v id e n c e .” ) . V lasich ’s re m ain in g co n ten ti o n s, in clu d in g th o se co n ce rn in g H o ff m an ’s t es t i m on y abo uthi s m i l i t ary s ervi ce , ar e unp er suas i ve. AF F I RME D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         112,458
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,208
<INVENTORY>                                      7,366
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,649
<PP&E>                                         318,489
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 483,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          356,327
<BONDS>                                        132,131
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      (5,349)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   483,175
<SALES>                                        441,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               454,636
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  394,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,854
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,473
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,381
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50



</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Peter BROWN.

No. 59640.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1977.

Joseph Neves Marcal, III, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Director, Research and Appeals Division, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The issue of whether or not the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel is properly raised by application for writ *1199of habeas corpus. *State v. Ross,*343 So.2d 722 (La.1977); *State v. Mouton,*327 So.2d 413 (La.1976).

Finding no reversible error in the record presently before us, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I,
Joseph C. Henry, Executive Vice President and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



By: /s/ Joseph C. Henry
   -------------------------

Joseph C. Henry
Executive Vice President and Acting Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2002
#### Ruth Marie ROSIER, Petitioner, v. DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD and Transportation Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

No. 43984.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 3, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.
262 La. 1095

#### W. H. HODGES & COMPANY, INC. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY and Gerald Hodges.

No. 52657.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1972.

In re: Gerald D. Hodges and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 262 So.2d 542.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Bernard L. GARMIRE, Chief of Police, City of Miami, Florida, Relator, v. John Red LAKE, Judge Civil Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-863.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 10, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 38450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16781]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10488]


E.O. 13224 Designation of Abdul Rehman al-Dakhil, aka Dilshad 
Ahmad, aka Danish Dilshad, aka Amantullah Ali, aka Amanatullah Ali, aka 
Amanat Ali, aka Imanat Ullah Iqbal, aka `Abd al-Rahman al-Dakhil as a 
Specially Designated Global Terrorist

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Abdul Rehman al-
Dakhil, also known as Dilshad Ahmad, also known as Danish Dilshad, also 
known as Amantullah Ali, also known as Amanatullah Ali, also known as 
Amanat Ali, also known as Imanat Ullah Iqbal, also known as `Abd al-
Rahman al-Dakhil, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, 
acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the 
national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: June 20, 2018.
Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2018-16781 Filed 8-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
#### Sol BRANDEIS and Lona Brandeis, his wife, Appellants, v. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 7, 1969.

Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, and Edward A. Perse, Miami, for appellant.

Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., and West & Goldman, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and SWANN, J., and BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal from an order dismissing their complaint against Dade County. The dismissal was with prejudice upon appellants’ refusal to file an amended complaint. The question presented to the trial court was whether the complaint stated sufficient facts to require an answer. It is apparent from the allegations of the complaint that Dade County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, enjoys governmental immunity 1 from suit. Keggin v. Hillsborough County, 71 Fla. 356, 71 So. 372 (1916). There are exceptions to this rule but appellants do not bring themselves within any of the recognized exceptions. Cf., e. g., State Road Department of Florida v. Tharp, 146 Fla. 745, 1 So.2d 868 (1941).

In addition the activity complained of, the alleged failure to promptly remove trash piled adjacent to the street, is a governmental activity. Cf. Waite v. Dade County, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 681, 683.

Affirmed.

1

. This action was commenced March 8, 1967, and therefore was not affected by statutes enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida at its 1969 Session. See § 768.15, Fla.Stat, F.S.A., which became effective July 1, 1969.