alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2023 WY 44

 April Term, A.D. 2023

May 10, 2023

DONALD EDWARD JENEROU,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-22-0306

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that 

Appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Pursuant to a 

plea agreement, Appellant entered unconditional guilty pleas to one count of burglary and 

one count of felony theft. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-301 and § 6-3-402. The district court

imposed sentences of eight to ten years, to be served consecutively. Appellant filed this 

appeal to challenge the district court’s October 13, 2022, Judgment Upon Pleas of Guilty 

and Sentence.

[¶2] On March 1, 2023, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel e-filed a Motion 

to Withdraw as Counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 

1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently entered an Order Granting 

Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief. This Court ordered that, on or before 

April 24, 2023, Appellant was permitted to file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the 

issues he would like the Court to consider in this appeal. This Court also provided notice 

that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would make its ruling on 

counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal. 

Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted.
[¶3] Now, following a careful review of the record and the Anders brief submitted by 

appellate counsel, this Court finds appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be 

granted and the district court’s Judgment Upon Pleas of Guilty and Sentence should be 

affirmed. It is, therefore,

[¶4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel 

for Appellant Donald Edward Jenerou, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of 

record for Appellant; and it is further

[¶5] ORDERED that the Weston County District Court’s October 13, 2022, Judgment 

Upon Pleas of Guilty and Sentence be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶6] DATED this 10th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

KATE M. FOX

Chief Justice
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 17, 2015

No. 04-14-00564-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF WADE R. BEDELL, JR., DECEASED,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PC-0636

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee's unopposed second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby 

GRANTED. Appellee's brief is due on or before April 23, 2015.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 987 

To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as the Davis-Bacon 

Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2015 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Ms. JENKINS of Kansas, Mr. PERRY, Mr. 

FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HARPER, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, and 

Mr. HENSARLING) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as 

the Davis-Bacon Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Davis-Bacon Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON WAGE REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of 

8 title 40, United States Code, is repealed. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 987 IH

1 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law to a 

2 wage requirement of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 

3 40, United States Code, shall after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act be null and void. 

5 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND LIMITATION. 

6 The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect 

7 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act but 

8 shall not affect any contract in existence on such date of 

9 enactment or made pursuant to invitation for bids out10 standing on such date of enactment. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Century Lumber Corp., Plaintiff, *v.*513 East 75th St. Corp. et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

April 14, 1959.

*581
      *Harry J. Stein*for plaintiff.

*Thaler $ Kandel*for Rosefried Corp. and another, defendants.

*Leo Gitlin*for 513 East 75th St. Corp. and another, defendants.

Ibving H. Saypol, J.

Motion and cross motion to vacate or modify the respective notices for examination before trial of the parties.

This is a representative action (Lien Law, § 71) for an accounting and to enforce a trust on funds received by an owner of a building pursuant to a mortgage and a building loan contract (see Lien Law, § 36). Defendant 513 East 75th St. Corp. is the owner; defendant Jacobson, its president; defendant Rosefried Corporation, the second mortgagee who allegedly were the holders in escrow of the disputed funds; and defendant Hill, a purported agent for Rosefried. Plaintiff alleges it supplied lumber for the improvement of the building.

Plaintiff presumably objects to an examination by defendants Rosefried and Hill as to the details of the sale of materials to the owner and as to all facts relevant to the issues of this case on the ground that it is premature, since the issue of misappropriation of the funds must first be decided. Plaintiff points out that should it and others similarly situated prevail, then and only then does its specific claim become relevant.

Defendant objects to being examined as to matters not germane to the issues.

The rule appears to be that there can be no general examination before trial in an action for accounting until the right to the accounting itself has been established *(Moffat*v. *Phoenix Brewery Corp.,*247 App. Div. 552). However, a limited examination is permitted solely on the issues on which the right to an accounting is predicated *(Del Genovese*v. *Del Genovese,*149 App. Div. 266).

The scope of defendants’ proposed examination is proper since its obvious purpose is to establish whether plaintiff is in the category entitled to pursue this action.

Similarly, plaintiff’s proposed examination appears to be appropriate to establish its right to an accounting.

Motion and cross motion are accordingly denied. Let the examinations proceed on April 23, 1959 at 10:00 a.m. at Special Term, Part II of this court. Books and papers are to be produced pursuant to section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. Priority to be determined in accordance with rule XI of this court.

Settle order.
July 25, 2008

27386

#### Schnars v. Lee

Affirmed
Exhibit 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certification

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DynTek, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that based on my knowledge:

(1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully complies
with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act;
and

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

Dated: February 14, 2005                   /s/ Steven J. Ross
                                           --------------------------
                                           Steven J. Ross
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
96 P.3d 612

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Rigaud

25443

08/02/2004

Affirmed
16785

#### State v. Faustine

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Frederick Law Olmsted Portrait
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Allyn Cox

Materials
    Oil on Canvas

Year
    1974

Location
      
U.S. Capitol Building
          Cox Corridors

Frederick Law Olmsted designed and carried out the landscaping of the U.S. Capitol grounds in the late 19th century.

About the Cox Corridors Murals

The first floor of the U.S. Capitol's House wing is elaborately decorated with wall and ceiling murals by artist Allyn Cox. Cox first executed the murals in the eastern north-south corridor, starting work in 1973 and finishing in 1974. Portraits of the nine men who served as Architect of the Capitol between 1793 and 1974 decorate the groined vaults of the ceilings. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 15 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 15

    Congratulating Pope Francis on his election and recognizing his 
                 inspirational statements and actions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2015

   Mr. Larson of Connecticut (for himself and Mr. King of New York) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                           on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Congratulating Pope Francis on his election and recognizing his 
                 inspirational statements and actions.

Whereas on March 13, 2013, Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, 
        Argentina, was elected Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church;
Whereas his election marked the first time a Pope from the Americas has been 
        selected;
Whereas he is the first Jesuit to become Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church;
Whereas he took the papal name of Francis, becoming the first pope to take the 
        name of St. Francis of Assisi, who was known for his devotion to 
        humility and the poor;
Whereas he has demonstrated his humility by choosing not to live in the lavish 
        Apostolic Palace, living instead with the clergy and lay people in the 
        Vatican guesthouse;
Whereas on March 28, 2013, he broke from tradition during the washing of feet, 
        when he washed the feet of 12 criminals, including two women, becoming 
        the first pope to include women in the rite;
Whereas on November 6, he displayed his charity by caressing a man with severe 
        disfigurement, drawing comparisons to the actions of his namesake, St. 
        Francis, whose kiss of a leper forever changed his life by solidifying 
        his commitment to the poorest among us;
Whereas when asked to describe himself during an interview with a Jesuit 
        magazine, he replied ``I am a sinner'';
Whereas his emphasis on humanitarian efforts to alleviate suffering serves as an 
        inspiration to Congress and all Americans;
Whereas his humility, his commitment to economic justice and improving the lives 
        of the poor, and his outreach to individuals from all walks of life have 
        been universally praised and are living examples of Jesus Christ's 
        message; and
Whereas his call to end inequality has echoed across the globe and brought 
        millions together in solidarity: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates Pope 
Francis on his election and recognizes his inspirational statements and 
actions.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in Chattem, Inc.'s 2001 annual report and incorporated by
reference in the Form 10-K into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-35386, 33-78524, 33-78922 and 33-61267), Form
S-3 (Nos. 33-69961, 33-69397, 33-31113, 33-03091 and 33-85348) and Form S-4 (No.
33-53627).


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Chattanooga, Tennessee
February 26, 2002
#### Gary W. Czosek et al., Appellants, v Sears, Roebuck & *1014Company et al., Respondents.

—Order and judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motions denied and amended complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiff Gary Czosek sustained serious injuries when he fell about 30 feet from an extension ladder. He was attempting to knock a tree limb from a wire by using a pole saw manufactured by defendant Vermont American Corporation and sold by defendant Sears, Roebuck & Company. The court erred in granting the motions of defendants Vermont American, Sears and Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint because defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 563). Their argument that plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered an electric shock fails because the initial burden is on the moving parties to show that plaintiff did not suffer an electric shock. Defendants failed to submit any expert opinion evidence or to otherwise prove that contention.

With respect to defendants’ alternative argument that, even if plaintiff did receive an electric shock, his own misuse of the pole saw was an intervening, superseding cause, we find that there are issues of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct was unforeseeable or so extraordinary as to constitute the sole proximate cause of his injuries *(cf., Boltax v Joy Day Camp,*67 NY2d 617).

We further reject defendants Sears’ and Vermont American’s argument that they had no duty to warn plaintiff of a risk of which he already was aware, i.e., the risk of using a pole saw near live wires; plaintiff testified at his deposition that he knew enough not to touch live wires, but he asserted in an affidavit that he did not know that there was danger in coming close to a live wire. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 983 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to minimum levels 

of financial responsibility for the transportation of property, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2015 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself, Mr. FATTAH, and Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to 

minimum levels of financial responsibility for the transportation of property, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe And Fair Envi5 ronment on Highways Achieved through Underwriting 

6 Levels Act of 2015’’ or the ‘‘SAFE HAUL Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 983 IH

1 SEC. 2. MINIMUM FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANS2 PORTING PROPERTY. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 31139(b)(2) of title 49, 

4 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘$750,000.’’ 

5 and inserting ‘‘$4,532,550 and the Secretary, in consulta6 tion with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shall adjust such 

7 amount annually for inflation relating to medical care.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this section shall take effect on the date that is 180 days 

10 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60584

Summary Calendar

JOSE LUIS SERRANO-FONSECA

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A45 181 375

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Serrano-Fonseca petitions for review of an order by the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the order of removal by the

Immigration Judge (IJ). He presents two issues. 

First, he contends: pursuant to Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006),

the IJ erred when he determined Serrano was convicted of an aggravated felony

and therefore was not eligible for cancellation of removal. Under 8 U.S.C. §

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 15, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60584

2

1252(a)(2)(C), federal courts lack jurisdiction to review a final order of removal

against an alien who is removable because he was convicted of an aggravated

felony. However, such courts have jurisdiction to consider whether Serrano’s

prior offense qualifies as an aggravated felony. See Omari v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d

303, 306 (5th Cir. 2005).

The definition of an “aggravated felony” includes “illicit trafficking in a

controlled substance . . . including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section

924(c) oftitle 18).” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). A “drug trafficking crime” includes

“any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.” 18 U.S.C. §

924(c)(2). A state offense constitutes a felony punishable under the Controlled

Substances Act only if it involves conduct punishable as a felony under federal

law. Lopez, 127 S. Ct. at 629-33. Serrano’s delivery of marijuana would subject

him to a potential maximum federal sentence of five years in prison. See 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). Because his offense was punishable by imprisonment for

more than one year, it qualifies as an aggravated felony under federal law. See

21 U.S.C. § 802(44).

For his other issue, Serrano contends he was denied due process because

the IJ failed to hold a merits hearing before issuing an order of removal. To the

extent that he is asserting he was entitled to a merits hearing to present

evidence about the drug quantity involved in his offense, he waived the claim

because he never requested a hearing on this ground. See Zhang v. Gonzales,

432 F.3d 339, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, Serrano’s contentions about the

drug quantity would not have affected the finding that his prior conviction

constituted an aggravated felony. To the extent that Serrano is asserting he was

entitled to a hearing to present evidence relating to his request for cancellation

of removal, he has no due process right to a hearing for discretionary relief. See

Gutierrez-Morales v. Homan, 461 F.3d 605, 610 (5th Cir. 2006).

DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-00197-CV

Style: Leticia B. Loya

v. Vitol, Inc., Michael Metz, and Antonio Maarraoui

Date motion filed*: April 1, 2015

Type of motion: Unopposed first motion to extend time for filing appellant’s brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed (moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Appellant filed her motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief before the court reporter’s record was filed and

the appellate record was complete. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1. Accordingly, appellant’s motion is dismissed as

moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

Because the court reporter’s record was filed with this Court on April 10, 2015, appellant’s brief is due to be filed

by May 11, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1, 38.6(a).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: April 16, 2015
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Elliott Woods Portrait
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Allyn Cox

Materials
    Oil on Canvas

Year
    1974

Location
      
U.S. Capitol Building
          Cox Corridors

Elliott Woods, who served as Architect of the Capitol from 1902 to 1923, constructed the first House and Senate office buildings (now named the Cannon and Russell buildings, respectively).

About the Cox Corridors Murals

The first floor of the U.S. Capitol's House wing is elaborately decorated with wall and ceiling murals by artist Allyn Cox. Cox first executed the murals in the eastern north-south corridor, starting work in 1973 and finishing in 1974. Portraits of the nine men who served as Architect of the Capitol between 1793 and 1974 decorate the groined vaults of the ceilings. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe