alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Schirford Realty Corporation, Petitioner, against Robert C. Weaver, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 19, 1957.

*Ruben S. Lind*for tenants.

*Joseph A. Giordano*for petitioner.

*Nathan Heller*and *Robert B. Keyes*for respondent.

Benedict D. Dineen, J.

Petitioner moves for an order to review and annul an order of the State Rent Administrator pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. The premises in question are classified as a residential apartment hotel consisting of 114 residential apartments 69 of which are decontrolled and the remainder subject to rent control. Petitioner sought to dispense with so-called switchboard service on the ground that there was little need of it by the tenants and was being operated by the landlord at a substantial loss of money. The landlord offered to replace such switchboard service by installing other services and making allowance to some tenants for expenses. The tenants affected vigorously oppose the substitution on the ground that the switchboard service is the very essence of hotel life. Besides the switchboard furnishing a convenience for telephone calls it supplies many other conveniences relied upon by persons occupying rooms in a hotel. It is a place to leave messages, parcels and in this particular instance forms a means of internal security and protection. The claim of the landlord that a $15,000 loss is sustained by continuing such service is most fantastic and not substantiated by any facts or figures. This case is to be distinguished from *Matter of Willey*v. *Abrams*(141 N. Y. S. 2d 643) where the premises in question involved an apartment house where the switchboard cannot be said to occupy such an important place *389as it does in an apartment hotel. Services tendered by the landlord in lieu of the switchboard cannot be deemed as suitable substitutes for the many services performed by reason of the switchboard and which services must be considered as an integral part of hotel life. Upon the record it cannot be said that the action of the respondent was either arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Petition dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

A. BRUNWASSER,

 Petitioner

 v.

JEFFREY K. COHEN,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 221 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
EA
- \ W
- \RBIRDS OF A.\IERICr\ A DIV I SION OF EAA P.O. Box a086 Oshkosh. WI 5-l903-308li

www.warhircls-caa.org "Keep 'em FIJi11g ..
June 20, 2016 U. S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building, ground floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington D.C. 20590 Dear Docket Operations, i '.._,.-·t_;

" I -=-) ·' · 

## 3-i, L ,d ._. - I -

We would like to take this opportunity to request an extension of Exemption 10588 from 14 CFR (FAR Section - Part: 91.531), issued to EAA Warbirds ofAmerica, permitting the operation of large airplanes that possess experimental certificates for the purpose of exhibition which have been designed with only one pilot station, to be operated without a pilot who is designated as second in command {SIC} of that airplane. Support for the exemption remains essentially the same as applied in our original request. Also, the exemption continues to be in the public's interest. T.he exemption has been administered for the past six years by EAA Warbirds ofAmerica under docket number FAA-2012-0406. There have been no problems or any degradation of safety since the implementation ofthis particular exemption. In order to continue operation ofthese aircraft underthe terms ofthe exemption and to allow for adding others to the list, it is imperative the exemption be extended for another two years or longer period oftime as appropriate. Enclosed, please find a copy ofthe original exemption. We look forward to your early reply to our request.

Bill - flscher, Executive Director EAA Warbirds of America 3000 Poberezny Road Oshkosh, Wl54903-3086 920-426-4871 bfischer@eaa.org
EXHIBIT 32



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer



Certification of Periodic Financial Report



Jae Whan Yoo and Lonny D. Robinson hereby certify as follows:



1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Center Financial Corporation.



2. The Form 10-K of Center Financial Corporation for the Year
Ended December 31, 2008 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 the information contained in the report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Center Financial Corporation.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                                                                   
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 30, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Jae Whan Yoo                                                                                  
|                      |  |  |  | Jae Whan Yoo President & Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                    
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 30, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Lonny D. Robinson                                                                             
|                      |  |  |  | Lonny D. Robinson Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1*****Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002***In connection with the Quarterly Report of American States Water Company and Southern CaliforniaWater Company (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Floyd E. Wicks, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.   /s/ Floyd E. Wicks     Floyd E. Wicks  Chief Executive Officer     Date: August 18, 2005  
32
August 8, 2016

Mr. Hunter Owens

Hunter Owens 166 N Pollasky Avenue
Clovis

, CA 93612

Re: FAA

– 2016

– 3969

Dear Mr. Owens :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request

. We have determined that

y our request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption

.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brenda Robeson Program A nalyst
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

 Plaintiff 

-vMICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

 Defendant 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

W-20-CV-00456-ADA 

W-20-CV-00458-ADA 

ORDER TO PAY TECHNICAL ADVISOR 

The Court previously appointed Dr. Joshua J. Yi to serve as a technical advisor on this 

case. The Court has reviewed Dr. Yi’s invoice for services through March 23, 2021 and finds the 

requested amount ($30,157.56) to be reasonable and necessary. As such, the Court ORDERS

payment to be promptly made as follows: 

Plaintiffs: $15,078.78 

Defendant: $15,078.78 

Dr. Yi will separately provide deposit instructions. 

SIGNED this 23rd day of March, 2021. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00458-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/23/21 Page 1 of 1
#### BURGE v. STATE.

No. 25439.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 31, 1951.

W. J. Martin, Lubbock, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

This is a conviction for felony theft; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

This case grows out of and is a companion case to that of White v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 242 S.W.2d 889.

The instant facts are insufficient to authorize a conviction for the same reason as assigned in the White case.

For the reasons there stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 20 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR HUGO LOPEZ-HERRERA,

Petitioner,

v.

IMMIGRATION &

NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

No. 00-9501

(Petition for Review)

(No. 99-N-2447)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
2--

Petitioner Victor Hugo Lopez-Herrera, a native of El Salvador, has filed

an emergency motion for stay of deportation pending petition for review. He

concedes that he was deported from the United States in March 1991 under

a valid final order of deportation and reentered the United States illegally later

the same year. He raises various arguments that the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) may not reinstate the 1991 order and remove

him now without holding another hearing.

Petitioner does not suggest a basis for this court’s jurisdiction and we

find none. This court lacks jurisdiction to review INS’s removal proceedings

generally. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); see also Reno v. American-Arab

Anti-Discrimination Comm. , 119 S. Ct. 936, 943 (1999) (holding that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(g) bars judicial review of removal proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). 

Further, this court is specifically barred from reviewing the agency’s

reinstatement of a prior deportation order. See Mendez-Tapia v. Sonchik ,

998 F. Supp. 1105, 1107-09 (D. Ariz. 1998) (discussing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5)).

The motion for stay of deportation is denied and the petition for review is

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 17 6 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NATALIE AMANDA RICH ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 2 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 26 2020

10/26/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0176
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification ofChief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002(18 U.S.C. § 1350)**

In connection with the quarterly report of SouthwestWater Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2006 (the “Report”), I, Cheryl L. Clary, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. §1350), that:

1)              to my knowledge, theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)              the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: August 9, 2006 | /s/ CHERYL L.  CLARY    |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|
|                  | Cheryl L. Clary         |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Ex parte HILL.

No. 26545.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1953.

*508None on appeal for appellant.

Will Sears, City Atty., Charles Easter-ling, Asst. City Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Judge.

Appellant sought his discharge by writ of habeas corpus filed in the County Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County, Texas, alleging in his application that he was illegally restrained of his liberty by the Sheriff of Harris County, by virtue of process issued out of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, which was based on a void conviction.

After a hearing, appellant was remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County, and from said order he gave notice of appeal.

At most, the record in this case shows that the appellant was being held by the Sheriff of Harris County for his failure to pay a bill of costs in County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, “for speeding.”

In the absence of the complaint and judgment upon which the conviction rests, we are unable to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing to discharge appellant.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court

On Motion for Rehearing

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant now moves this Court to consider a supplemental statement of facts entitled “Exhibits on Appeal, which was filed in the trial court long after the expiration of the 90 days provided by Article 759a, V.A.C.C.P.

As we view such article, it applies to appeals from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus as well as appeals from trials on the merits.

It has been the consistent holding of this Court that “supplemental statements of fact’’ filed too late may not be considered. Davis v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 231 S.W.2d 444.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
#### Giovani Russo, Respondent, v Carmen Russo, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.), dated September 12, 1988. The defendant’s notice of appeal from the order dated September 12, 1988, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Groh at the Supreme Court. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.3


                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                      PERFORMANCE AWARD AND CASH BONUS PLAN
                                  OF SONAT INC.


     Sonat Inc. hereby amends the Performance Award and Cash Bonus Plan of Sonat
Inc.,  as amended  effective  as of December 1, 1995 (the  "Plan"),  as follows,
effective as of July 23, 1998:

     1. The first  sentence of Section 2.6 of the Plan is hereby amended to read
in its entirety as follows:

                  Notwithstanding  any other provision of this Plan or contained
           in any Performance Award granted  hereunder  (including any provision
           for deferred  payment  thereof),  upon the  occurrence of a Change of
           Control (as defined in Section 4.6), a participant shall be deemed to
           have  earned  100%  of  the  Bonus  Opportunities  contained  in  any
           outstanding Performance Awards for which the determinations described
           in  Section  2.3 have not been  made,  and the  amount of such  Bonus
           Opportunities shall be paid promptly (and no later than 30 days after
           the Change of Control) in a cash lump sum.

     2. The Plan is in all other respects ratified and confirmed without
amendment.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  Sonat Inc. has executed  this document as of July 23,
1998.

                               SONAT INC.


                               By:
                                        Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr.
                                        Chairman of the Board,
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
#### WALKER v. STATE.

No. 26988.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 5, 1954.

S; Stanford Pitts, T. W. Crawford, Con-roe, .fpf appellant. . , ...

■'Wesléy 'Dice, 'State’s Atty./ of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Murder is the offense, with punishment assessed at life imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The state’s testimony shows that appellant, without justification, excuse, or provocation, shot and killed the deceased with a pistol, and suggests no motive or previous ill-will existing between the parties. The killing appears to be unexplained. It is also shown by the testimony that appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time.

The appellant did not testify, nor did he offer any testimony.

. Appellant’s sole contention is that the facts do not warrant a conviction for murder with malice. Counsel for appellant, in their brief, so contend and rely upon the cases of Parks v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 464, 99 S.W.2d 943, and Ely v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 520, 141 S.W.2d 626.

These cases are not deemed in point.

In the Parks case, the testimony of both parties showed that the accused had been knocked down twice and was being attacked a third time when the fatal shot was. fired. No similar facts are suggested in the-instant record.

. In the Ely case, the killing occurred in> connection with an unlawful arrest of the-accused by the deceased. No comparable facts are presented in the instant case.

The conclusion is reached that the-facts in the case before us are controlled, by the rule announced in Lovelady v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 50, 198 S.W.2d 570, which is. that the intended shooting of one with a pistol is sufficient to authorize the jury to conclude that the shooting was actuated by-malice. See, also, Harvey v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 332, 201 S.W.2d 42, and Brown, v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 216 S.W.2d 226.

Believing the facts sufficient to warrant the jury’s conclusion, the' judgment is affirmed. ;

Opinion approved by the Court.
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

83) IV-C-49 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:55 AM Sheet 83 of 232 
P.2 

•^_*_ \ 

jf t-jQt? 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

\ V|^

 T WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

•ft. _«r \ ^ 

CTA-v 28 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Thomas E. Petri 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Petri: 

This is in response to your January 12, 1988 letter 

relaying the concerns of two of your constituents, 

Mr. w. P. Springer and Ms. Sally Halmbacker, regarding EPA's 

regulatory proposal to require onboard canisters on new 

vehicles to control refueling emissions. To assist you with 

your response, I have enclosed a copy of our proposal for 

your review. Section E (pages 31177-31182) explains EPA's 

overall rationale for proposing onboard controls. If you 

would like further details of our analysis, please contact 

Mr. Philip Carlson of the Standards Development and Support 

Branch of the Emission Control Technology Division, 2565 

Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 (FTS 374-8270 or 

Commercial (313) 668-4270). 

Thank you for your letter. We will place the letters \ 

from Mr. Springer and Ms. Halmbacker in our public docket and 

fully consider their comments in the next phase of our 

rulemaking process. 

Sincerely yours, 

:;^;G;:'AL SIGNED BY 

.•.;::-;;-.-,DD. IVILSON 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

Enclosure 

cc: Dock«t A-87-11
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-30951 Conference Calendar

__________________ MARY ANN LOVELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JOHN B. SLATTERY, JR., McConell & Slattery Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1183-F
- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mary Ann Lovell appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of her complaint against John B. Slattery, Jr. The district court’s dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute was not an abuse of discretion. See McCullough v. Lynaugh , 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This appeal is frivolous. It is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 2

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009755

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009756

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 3 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009757

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 4 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009758

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 5 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009759

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 6 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009760

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 7 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009761

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 8 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009762

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 9 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009763

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 10 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009764

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 11 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009765

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 12 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009766

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 13 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009767

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 14 of 15
Microsoft_HoloLens_WSOU000009768

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 15 of 15