alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marvin POWELL, Administrator of the Estate of Vera Powell, deceased, Vernon Powell, Marvin Powell, Sharon Smith, Raymond Powell, and Glen Powell, Appellants, v. STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Appellees.

No. 69293.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4.

Dec. 13, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1989.

*904Jess Horn, Michael R. Martin, Crowley, Butler, Pickens & Martin, Enid, for appellants.

Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen. and Cathy Clinton Dabney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellees.

SUMMARY OPINION

BACON, Judge.

This court has reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, and having duly considered the same, finds that the judgment of the trial court should be and is hereby summarily affirmed pursuant to Civil Appellate Procedure Rule 1.202(d), 12 O.S.Supp.1987, ch. 15, app. 2.

The decision to release or petition for involuntary commitment is a discretionary act and therefore exempt from liability under 51 O.S.Supp.1987 § 155(5).

AFFIRMED.

RAPP, J., concurs.

BRIGHTMIRE, P.J., dissents.

BRIGHTMIRE, Presiding Judge,

dissenting.

In my opinion the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs do not bring the state within any of the exemptions set out in 51 O.S.Supp. 1987 §§ 155(4) and (5), and reading them in context of all 28 exemptions leads me to conclude that neither (4) nor (5) was intended to cover the factual situation we have here, and neither does.

Nor does the relevant case law interpreting the Governmental Torts Claims Act in my opinion require dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case against the state. *See*implications arising from *Burns v. Radar,*723 P.2d 266 (Okl.1986); *Hershel v. University Hospital Foundation,*610 P.2d 237 (Okl.1980); and *Griggs v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Transportation,*702 P.2d 1017 (Okl.1985).

Moreover, none of the other arguments of the state in defense of the trial court’s ruling have merit in my view.

Finally, the state’s motion to dismiss this appeal should be denied.

I would reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
#### METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Neal W. FINLAYSON, individually and Lee Childs individually and as Guardian ad litem of Michelle Childs, a minor, Defendants and Appellant.

No. 860204-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Jan. 9, 1989.

Anthony M. Thurber, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

Lowell V. Smith, Hanson, Dunn, Epper-son & Smith, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent;

Before BENCH, BILLINGS and ORME, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

This appeal was initially decided by opinion dated March 7, 1988. *See Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Finlayson,*751 P.2d 254 (Utah Ct.App.1988). Respondent subsequently filed a petition for rehearing, which was granted. The court heard reargument and took the matter under advisement. Prior to any further disposition by the court, the parties entered into a settlement. With the appeal thus resolved, there is no “case or controversy” which this court may properly now decide. However, the court considers it inappropriate that its initial opinion stand since rehearing had been granted and the court had determined that reconsideration of its opinion was in order.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, the case is remanded to district court for further proceedings consistent with the stipulation of the parties, and the court’s initial opinion herein is vacated.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6535

ERIC M. MCMILLIAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NC CENTRAL PRISON; J.D. CHURCH; LIEUTENANT PANTER; SERGEANT 

JASPER; OFFICER HENDERSON; OFFICER MORRISON; DIETICIAN AT

CENTRAL PRISON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:10-ct-03037-FL)

Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric M. McMillian, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric M. McMillian appeals from three orders that the 

district court entered in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action: 

(1) the January 4, 2012 order granting two Defendants summary 

judgment; (2) the September 7, 2012 order denying McMillian’s 

first motion for reconsideration of the January 4 order; and (3) 

the March 19, 2013 order granting another Defendant summary 

judgment and denying McMillian’s second motion for 

reconsideration of the January 4 order. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we 

grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court in these various orders. 

See McMillian v. N.C. Central Prison, No. 5:10-ct-03037-FL 

(E.D.N.C. Jan. 4, 2012, Sept. 7, 2012, & Mar. 19, 2013). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### WESTERN EMPIRE CONSTRUCTORS, INC. and Commercial Union Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE OF COLORADO; Robert D. Holdsworth; and Director Division of Labor, Department of Labor and Employment, Respondents.

No. 88CA1810.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Division V.

Jan. 26, 1989.

*1090Clifton & Hemphill, P.C., James R. Clifton, Denver, for petitioners.

Steven U. Mullens, Colorado Springs, for respondent Robert D. Holdsworth.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Curt P. Kriksciun, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents Indus. Claim Appeals Office and Dept, of Labor and Employment.

CRISWELL, Judge.

This workmen’s compensation matter is before us for consideration of the motion of claimant, Robert D. Holdsworth, for enlargement, of time in which to file a cross-appeal. We conclude that a petition for review, whether it is denominated an appeal or a cross-appeal, must be filed within 20 days after the date of the certificate of mailing of the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel’s final order. Accordingly, we deny the motion for enlargement of time.

C.A.R. 3.1(a) provides that an appeal from a final order of the Panel “shall be in the manner and within the time prescribed by statute.” Section 8-53-111(8), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B), which governs appellate review of workmen’s compensation matters, provides that: “Any party dissatisfied with the panel’s order shall have twenty days after the date of the certificate of mailing of such order to file an appeal with the court of appeals.”

Section 8-53-111(8) does not provide for the filing of a cross-petition for review in workmen’s compensation matters; rather, it requires any *party*to seek review within twenty days of the Panel’s final order. Furthermore, the statute does not contain a provision allowing an extension of time in which to file a petition for review. *See Lutheran Hospital & Homes Society v. Industrial Commission,*710 P.2d 496 (Colo.App.1985).

Accordingly, claimant’s motion for extension of time in which to seek review is denied.

PLANK and NEY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         302,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               488,000
<PP&E>                                         316,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (254,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 550,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,667,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       393,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,510,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   550,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               983,000
<CGS>                                          264,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,030,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              74,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,385,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,385,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,895,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8673]

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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, April 14, 2011; 4 p.m.

PLACE: Radio Free Asia Headquarters, 2025 M St., NW., Washington, DC 
20036.

SUBJECT: Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet at the 
time and location listed above. The BBG will receive a Prague trip 
report, receive and consider a report from the Board's Strategy and 
Budget Committee on the status of the current regional reviews, receive 
and consider a report from the Board's Governance Committee on matters 
pertaining to future Agency organizational structures, receive a report 
from the International Broadcasting Bureau Director, and receive 
programming coverage updates by the Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, 
and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. The meeting is open to 
public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on 
the BBG's public Web site at http://www.bbg.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-8673 Filed 4-7-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50634 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LEONCIO ORTIZ JACOBO, also known as Leoncio Ortiz-Jacobo, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-78-ALL-LY

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Leoncio Ortiz Jacobo raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 

volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical 

error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 

Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 

Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-

1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-13519

ORRETT DALEY vs. COMMONWEALTH.

March 29, 2024.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts, 

Appeal from order of single justice.

Orrett Daley appeals from a judgment of the county court 

denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. 

c. 211, § 3, on the ground that he has an adequate remedy in the 

normal appellate process. We affirm.

Daley has been charged in the District Court with operating 

a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor and other 

offenses. He filed a motion for third-party records, 

specifically, personal telephone records of the State police 

trooper1 who conducted the motor vehicle stop that resulted in 

the charges. That motion was denied, as was a motion for 

reconsideration. Some months later, Daley filed a motion to 

impose sanctions on the Commonwealth for an alleged lack of 

compliance with a discovery order and a request for records 

based on new evidence. That motion and request were also 

denied. Daley's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition challenged these 

interlocutory rulings.

The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2), as 

amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires Daley to file a 

1 The trooper filed a motion to intervene in the county 

court proceedings. The single justice, having ruled that Daley 

was not entitled to relief, denied the motion to intervene as 

moot. That ruling has not been challenged before us.
2

record appendix and memorandum "set[ting] forth the reasons why 

review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained 

on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or 

by other available means."2 Daley cannot make this showing. The 

adverse rulings can be addressed on appeal if he is convicted of 

any offense. Daley asserts that he should not have to await 

conviction and appeal, but offers no reason why this ordinary 

process, applicable in any other case where a criminal defendant 

unsuccessfully moves for discovery, is inadequate in his case. 

The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by 

denying relief.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 

a memorandum of law.

Michael A. McLaughlin for the petitioner.

2 Daley has filed a brief, which we are treating as the 

memorandum required by the rule.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.37 MB)

Tags:DLA Energy Americas at Houston, Change of Command

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.40

                                     ALLONGE


         This Allonge, dated and effective as of November 13, 1998, is attached
to and made part of that certain Promissory Note (the "Note") dated December 31,
1996 in the original principal amount of Five Million Dollars and no cents
($5,000,000.00) made by Security Associates International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, payable to TJS Partners, L.P., a New York limited partnership.

                  All references in the Note to "Five Million and No/100
         Dollars" and "$5,000,000.00" shall be changed to read "EIGHT MILLION
         DOLLARS AND NO/100" AND "$8,000,000.00."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of Security Associates International, Inc. and
TJS Partners, L.P. has executed this Allonge as of the date set forth above.


                               SECURITY ASSOCIATES
                               INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                               By:____________________________
                                        James S. Brannen

                               Its:     President


                               TJS PARTNERS, L.P.
                               BY: TJS MANAGEMENT, L.P.
                               ITS: GENERAL PARTNER


                               By:____________________________
                                      Thomas J. Salvatore

                               Its:     Managing Partner
Exhibit 31.1
 Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-1 and 15d-14
As adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 Marc L. Dulude
     (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 Registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  (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.
 Date: November 15, 2010
    
    /s/ Marc L. Dulude

Marc L. DuludeChief Executive Officer
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.93 MB)

Tags:CFC, Charity Fair

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery