alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Mary F. Philip, Deceased. Richard Fried, Respondent; Roger Roth, Appellant.

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County (Benson, S.), dated August 30, 1990, as, upon granting the objectant’s motion to renew, adhered to its prior order dated June 10, 1989, granting the petitioner’s motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate, only to the extent of dismissing the fourth and fifth objections grounded in undue influence and fraud.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

Summary judgment was properly granted since the objectant failed to present any evidence showing that undue influence was exercised by the petitioner, his wife, or the attorney who drafted the testator’s will, to effect a change in the testator’s testamentary intent. Nor was evidence presented that their behavior was fraudulent in that respect. A mere showing of opportunity and even of motive to exercise undue influence is insufficient to present a triable issue of fact, without additional evidence that such influence was actually exercised *(see, Matter of Walther,*6 NY2d 49, 55). Nor can such inference be reasonably drawn from circumstances that are not inconsistent with a contrary inference *(Matter of Walther, supra).*Since there was no supportable inference of undue influence or fraud the court properly dismissed those objections as a matter of law *(see, Matter of Pascal,*309 NY 108; *Matter of Swain,*125 AD2d 574; *Matter of Hedges,*100 AD2d 586). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 10, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 10, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0214. QUINTEZ D. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 19CR00758
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 
**- 6633** 

KIRK L. ANDERSON ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv
- 00466

- JAG

- RCY )

Submitted : October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON , KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kirk L. Anderson , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Kirk L. Anderson appeal s the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failing to
comply with a co urt order

. On appeal, we confine our review to
the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R.

34(b). Because Anderson ’ s informal brief does not challenge the
basis for the district court’s disposition, Anderson has

forfeited appellate revie w of the court’s order. See Williams

v. Giant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly , we affirm the district court ’ s judgment . We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTERWEST BANCORP, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          70,623
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,471
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    700,550
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          70,692
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            69,209
<LOANS>                                      1,561,584
<ALLOWANCE>                                     14,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,579,539
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,578,949
<SHORT-TERM>                                   163,010
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,374
<LONG-TERM>                                    654,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     165,306
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,579,539
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                126,482
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               50,398
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,779
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               179,659
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              55,416
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,480
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           84,179
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  72
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 68,147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,440
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      27,855
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,855
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.74
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.64
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,899
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,224
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,553
<RECOVERIES>                                       452
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               14,123
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             8,858
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          5,265


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1972 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1972

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of methyl 4-
   iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl] 
     benzoate, sodium salt (Iodosulfuron methyl, sodium salt) and 
                         application adjuvants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2009

   Mr. Crapo introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of methyl 4-
   iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl] 
     benzoate, sodium salt (Iodosulfuron methyl, sodium salt) and 
                         application adjuvants.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF METHYL 4-IODO-2-[3-(4-METHOXY-6-METHYL-1,3,5-
              TRIAZIN-2-YL)UREIDOSULFONYL] BENZOATE, SODIUM SALT 
              (IODOSULFURON METHYL, SODIUM SALT) AND APPLICATION 
              ADJUVANTS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.11.44 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to mixtures of methyl 4-iodo-2-
[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl] benzoate, 
sodium salt (Iodosulfuron methyl, sodium salt) and application 
adjuvants) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1919 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1919

      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's footwear.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

  Mr. Roberts introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's footwear.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN'S FOOTWEAR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Other footwear      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          with uppers of                                                     31/2011.......
                          vegetable fibers,
                          for women.
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          6405.20.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the report of ToroVentures Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ending September30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Yan Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect 1350), that to my knowledge: 

 

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

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

 

/s/ Yan Liu                                   

Yan Liu, 

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: December 29, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10346

Summary Calendar

MCR OIL TOOLS, L.L.C., 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

SPEX GROUP US, L.L.C.; SPEX ENGINEERING (UK), LIMITED, 

 Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court 

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CV-731

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellee MCR Oil Tools, L.L.C. (“MCR”) filed this lawsuit

against Defendants-Appellants SPEX Group US, L.L.C. and SPEX 

Engineering (UK), Limited (“SPEX”) in state court in Texas. The complaint 

alleged that SPEX misappropriated trade secrets and engaged in unfair 

competition. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 20, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10346 Document: 00515207579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2019
No. 19-10346

2

After removing the suit to federal court, SPEX sought to dismiss MCR’s

claims under Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute, the Texas Citizens Participation Act 

(“TCPA”). See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.001–27.011. MCR later moved 

to determine the applicability of the TCPA, a state law, in federal diversity 

cases like this one. The district court held that the TCPA did not apply in 

federal court and thus denied as moot SPEX’s motion to dismiss MCR’s suit 

under the TCPA. 

SPEX appealed, arguing that the TCPA does in fact apply in federal 

court and that the district court erred by holding otherwise. SPEX also argued 

that MCR should have been estopped from challenging the applicability of the 

TCPA after fighting SPEX’s motion to dismiss on the merits for several 

months.

SPEX’s appeal was held in abeyance pending the decision by a different 

panel of this court in Klocke v. Watson, 936 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2019), as revised

(Aug. 29, 2019). The panel in Klocke was faced with deciding as an issue of first 

impression whether the TCPA applies in federal court. Id. at 242. The court

held that “the TCPA does not apply to diversity cases in federal court.” Id.

Under the “rule of orderliness,” “[t]hree-judge panels . . . abide by a prior 

Fifth Circuit decision until the decision is overruled, expressly or implicitly, by 

either the United States Supreme Court or by the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc.” 

Gahagan v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 911 F.3d 298, 302 

(5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, 

pursuant to Klocke, the district court’s decision to deny SPEX’s motion to 

dismiss on the ground that the TCPA does not apply in federal court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-10346 Document: 00515207579 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2019
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Moore, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered November 9, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that a statement may be admitted under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay, provided that the declarant spoke "while under the stress or influence of the excitement caused by [an external] event, so that his reflective capacity was stilled” *(People v Nieves,*67 NY2d 125, 135; *see, People v Brown,*70 NY2d 513, 519; *People v Edwards,*47 NY2d 493, 497). "[T]he decisive factor is whether the surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection” *(People v Edwards, supra,*at 497).

At the hospital, approximately 40 minutes after the victim had been shot in the back of the neck (a wound which ultimately caused his death), while the victim was being attended to by approximately five doctors and nurses, Detective McGill asked him, "Who shot you?”. The victim answered in a nearly inaudible tone "Bubba, Bubba”; he then said "They left on the motorcycle”. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court’s determination to allow this statement in as an excited utterance was proper. The "surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection” *(People v Edwards, supra,*at 497).

The defendant also argues that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation denied him a fair trial. We note that most of the comments to which the defendant would now assign error went without objection and are therefore unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). To the extent that the issue is preserved, we find that the prosecutor’s comments were either fair response to the defense summation, or, to the extent that any error may have existed, it was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Roopchand,*65 NY2d 837).

*569We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0221

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

GARY WAYNE TEMPLE, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, Court 

Reporter Sheena Jendro Cobb is granted an extension of time to and 

including May 19, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and serve the 

transcripts requested on appeal.

No further extensions will be granted.

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 29 2021

03/29/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0221
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1784 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that State approving 

agencies provide timely responses to applications for approval of courses 

of education and provide justifications for disapproval of courses, to 

provide for the review of the disapproval of courses by State approving 

agencies, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 14, 2009 

Mr. ENSIGN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that State 

approving agencies provide timely responses to applications for approval of courses of education and provide 

justifications for disapproval of courses, to provide for 

the review of the disapproval of courses by State approving agencies, and for other purposes. 

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


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1784 IS

1 SECTION 1. ENHANCEMENT OF PROCESS FOR APPROVAL 

2 OF ACCREDITED COURSES. 

3 Section 3675 of title 38, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following new sub5 sections: 

6 ‘‘(d)(1) Not later than 90 days after a State approv7 ing agency receives an application from an educational in8 stitution for approval of a course of education under this 

9 section, the State approving agency shall transmit to such 

10 educational institution a response to such application in 

11 writing. 

12 ‘‘(2) If a State approving agency disapproves under 

13 this section a course that is offered by an educational in14 stitution, the State approving agency shall transmit to the 

15 educational institution a justification for such disapproval. 

16 ‘‘(e)(1) The Secretary may, upon application therefor 

17 by an educational institution, review the determination of 

18 a State approving agency to disapprove pursuant to this 

19 section a course of education offered by the educational 

20 institution. 

21 ‘‘(2) The Secretary may overturn a determination re22 viewed by the Secretary under paragraph (1). Any action 

23 by the Secretary under this paragraph shall be within the 

24 sole discretion of the Secretary, and shall not be subject 

25 to judicial review. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1784 IS

1 ‘‘(3) A course of education covered by the overturning 

2 under paragraph (2) of a determination of disapproval of 

3 a State approving agency shall be deemed approved by the 

4 State approving agency for purposes of this section.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cyril Morgan, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered November 5, 1986, convicting him of arson in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination that the defendant was not entitled to a *Dunaway*hearing. The defendant’s allegations were insufficient to raise an issue concerning the probable cause for his arrest after a police investigation, and his subsequent confession following a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his *Miranda*rights *(see,*CPL 710.60 [1]; *People v Williams,*170 AD2d 552). "In the absence of any factual allegations based upon personal knowledge, or based upon information and belief * * * the summary denial of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for suppression was entirely appropriate, as no factual issues warranting a hearing were presented in the defendant’s motion papers” *(People v Pavesi,*144 AD2d 392, 393).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00304

- CR

Juan Nepomuceno Rodriguez

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1324633D)

November 12, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordere d that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-2 (No.333-86548), Form S-3 (No. 333-24083) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-38929, 333-49787 and 333-103453) ofMeadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. of our reports dated April 20, 2005 relating to management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 0014 9

- CR

J AMES C ALVIN M ASSEY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 371st District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1 632168 D )

March 3, 2022

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(p)

JUDGMENT ON REHEARING

After reviewing the State ’ s motion for rehearing, we grant the motion . We

withdraw our December 9

, 2021 opinion and judgment and substitute the following.

This court has again considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial cou rt’s judgmen t . It is ord ered that the judgment of the

trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell