alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

ZACHARY JOHNSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., 

Defendants 

Case No. 1:12-cv-964 

Weber, J. 

Litkovitz, M.J. 

ORDER 

Plaintiffs, inmates at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution in Leakesville, 

Mississippi, bring this pro se civil rights action against United States Attorney General Eric 

Holder, Jr.; Attorney General ofthe State ofMississippi Jim Hood; federal judges Keith Starrett, 

James L. Dennis, E. Grady Jolly Jr., Carolyn Dineen King, Jerry E. Smith, Patrick E. 

Higginbotham, and Royce C. Lamberth; and United States Department of Justice Director of the 

Torts Branch, Phyllis J. Pyles. Plaintiff Johnson has filed an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Venue lies in the judicial district where either all defendants reside or where the claim 

arose. Al-Muhaymin v. Jones, 895 F.2d 1147, 1148 (6th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The 

individual defendants reside in Washington, D.C., Jackson, Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 

New Orleans, Louisiana, Houston, Texas, and Austin, Texas. None of the defendants reside in 

the Southern District of Ohio. The claims asserted in the complaint relate to events that are 

alleged to have occurred in Washington, D.C., and not the Southern District of Ohio. Therefore, 

this Court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs' claims. 

"The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or 

district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division 
in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Since this district is the improper 

venue for plaintiffs' claims against the defendants, the Court shall transfer this action to the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia, for further proceedings. 

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Clerk of Courts is hereby DIRECTED 

TO TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for 

ruling on plaintiffs in forma pauperis application and all further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: ~~~~;<_ 

United 

6.0~~ States Magistrate Judge 

2
NO. 07-10-00218-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JULY 13, 2010

JULIAN BARTOLO ORTIZ, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF CASTRO COUNTY;

NO. B2949-0407; HONORABLE EDWARD LEE SELF, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

Pending before the court is the motion of appellant Julian Bartolo Ortiz to dismiss his appeal.  Appellant and his attorney have both signed the motion.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

								James T. Campbell

									Justice

Do not publish.  

2
#### HENDERSON v. STATE.

No. 24648.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 8, 1950.

None on appeal, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for murder without malice, with a sentence of five years in the penitentiary.

The indictment alleges that appellant shot and killed Dorothy Mae Henderson on the first day of May, 1949. The statement of facts in this case is not signed and approved by the trial judge, for which reason we are unable to consider the same. The statement of facts is not so much as signed by the attorneys for the prosecution.

We find two bills of exception in the case, each complaining of the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment. We have examined these bills of exception and the questions raised by them and have concluded that in the absence of a statement of facts we have no basis for sustaining either of the bills.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

HAWKINS, P. J., absent.
Exhibit 31.2

               CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Synnott B. Durham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sunair Electronics,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being
     prepared;

     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     (c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


DATE: AUGUST 12, 2003

/s/ Synnott B. Durham
-------------------------------------
Synnott B. Durham
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
4255792-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

BRYNNE SOUKUP, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648-RP 

v. ) 

) 

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. and ) 

FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC, ) 

Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANT’S EXPERT DISCLOSURE 

Defendant, Flight Services & Systems, LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, 

hereby serve this Expert Disclosure and designate: 

Sarah Voorhies Myers, H. Michael Bush, Amy L. McIntire, and Tom Marotta, or their 

designee, as an expert on the issue of attorney’s fees and costs and all factors related to an award 

of reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs. 

CHAFFE McCALL, LLP 

Sarah Voorhies Myers (pro hac vice) 

Amy L. McIntire (pro hac vice) 

2300 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

T: (504) 585-7000 

F: (504) 544-6092 

E: myers@chaffe.com 

E: mcintire@chaffe.com 

H. Michael Bush 

Texas Bar No.24054296 

2300 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

T: (504) 585-7000 

F: (504) 544-6042 

E: bush@chaffe.com 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 39 Filed 07/12/21 Page 1 of 3
2 

4255792-1

LoPRESTI MARCOVY & MAROTTA, LLP 

Thomas P. Marotta, Esq. (OH Bar No. 0024884) (pro hac vice) 

1468 West Ninth Street, Suite 330 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

T: (216) 241-7740 

F: (216) 241-6031 

E: tpm@lmm-llp.com 

OPINION PROVIDED: Reasonableness and amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be 

recovered in this matter, including (without limitation) as rebuttal, if necessary, regarding 

Plaintiff’s reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting the above-referenced 

action once Plaintiff’s counsel discloses any such opinions. 

Respectfully Submitted: 

CHAFFE McCALL, LLP 

/s/ Sarah V. Myers 

Sarah Voorhies Myers (pro hac vice) 

Amy L. McIntire (pro hac vice) 

2300 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

T: (504) 585-7000 

F: (504) 544-6092 

E: myers@chaffe.com 

E: mcintire@chaffe.com 

H. Michael Bush 

Texas Bar No.24054296 

2300 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

T: (504) 585-7000 

F: (504) 544-6042 

E: bush@chaffe.com 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

Flight Services & Systems, LLC 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 39 Filed 07/12/21 Page 2 of 3
3 

4255792-1

LoPRESTI MARCOVY & MAROTTA, LLP 

Thomas P. Marotta, Esq. (OH Bar No. 0024884) 

 (pro hac vice) 

1468 West Ninth Street, Suite 330 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

T: (216) 241-7740 

F: (216) 241-6031 

E: tpm@lmm-llp.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that, on this 12th day of July, 2021, I filed a copy of the foregoing with 

the Clerk of Court utilizing the Court’s ECF system resulting in a true and correct copy of same 

being served upon counsel of record for all parties to this proceeding. 

/s/ Sarah Voorhies Myers 

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 39 Filed 07/12/21 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALANI OLUSEGUN ARAWOLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-283-L, CA-00-66-BEL) Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 31, 2004 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alani Olusegun Arawole, Appellant Pro Se. Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alani Olusegun Arawole, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Arawole has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant the motion to file an amended informal brief, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Exhibit 13.3


                    INTERSTAR MILLENNIUM SERIES 2002-1G TRUST

      Quarterly Noteholders Report Related to the April 7, 2003 Distribtion


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                                     <C>
Aggregate  principal amount of each class of notes as at the            A2 Notes:  USD $919,942,000
first  day after  the  Payment  Date  occurring  during  the
collection period i.e. 8th January 2003:

Aggregate  amount of interest payable on each class of notes            A2 Notes:  USD $3,610,772.35
on the Payment Date being 7th April 2003:

Aggregate  of  principal  payments  to be made in respect to            A2 Notes:  USD $56,528,200.00
each class of notes on the Payment Date being 7th April 2003:

Income for the collection period:                                       AUD $28,855,020.77

The Mortgage Principal Repayments for the collection period:            AUD $129,966,101

Expenses of the trust for the collection period:                        AUD $23,978,501.48

Aggregate  of all redraws on the  housing  loans made during            AUD $28,694,787
the collection period:

Interest  rates  (all in)  applicable  for  interest  period            A2 Notes: 1.458750%
ending 6th July 2003:

The scheduled and unscheduled  payments of principal  during            Scheduled:      AUD $3,485,326
the collection period:                                                  Unscheduled:    AUD $126,480,775

Aggregate of outstanding balances of housing loans as at the            31 March 2003:  AUD $1,665,151,544.80
last of day of the collection period:

Delinquency  and loss statistics with respect to the housing            Loss:
loans as at the last day of the collection period                       Nil
                                                                        Delinquency:
                                                                        0-29     1.42%
                                                                        30-59    0.34%
                                                                        60+      0.24%
</TABLE>

                                  Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 18, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00595

- CV

Rudolph RESENDEZ , Jr.

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, et al., Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Tri al Court No. 15

- 10

- 00236

- CVK Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record in this appeal has been filed. The clerk’s record shows appellant is appealing from a trial court cause number 15

- 10

- 00236

- CVK. This court dismissed appellant’s previous appeal from this cause number, because the record does not contain a final appealable judgment and this court accordingly lacked appellate jurisdiction.

The clerk’s record in this appeal does not contain a final appealable judgment. In order for this court to have jurisdiction, an appealable judgment must be written and signed by the trial court. In re M.R.G. , No. 04

- 17

- 00623

- CV, 2017 WL 4938422, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Nov. 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). It therefore appears to the court that the order or judgment appellant desires to appeal is not appealable.

We ORDER appellant to show cause in writing to this court within 10 days of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If a supplemental cl erk’s record is required to demonstrate our jurisdiction, appellant must (a) ask the trial court clerk to prepare the record, and (b) notify this court that such a request was made. We further order the appellate deadlines suspended until further order of this court. If appellant fails to file a satisfactory response by the date ordered, the appeal will be dismissed._________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of September, 2019

.

___________________________________ Keith E . Hott le

, Cler k of Court
846 

I 

kJ OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

d AUSTIN 

OROVLR sLLL=I)* 

Honor&bla Goorgo H. Shopwrd 

Comptroller of Pub110 Acoountr 

Au&in, TeMr 

D&r Slrt 

aertltlcats rhevlng the 

p the dlrtriat alark of -118 County 

onorrblr Tarry Dlckrnr, D18trlct Judge 

394, OM Of thS 8tWXt@8 fO?8bg thS 

ho 8t8t8, wk.8 pro+iSiOa iOr th. OnVitM8808 in &@08WUtioM UUder thO88 3AV8. The rrtlcle prOvid88 t&t 'lo ti8e 

th” S-to 18 th, plrtr 38f&UO8tl~ thV wSQM1 attO-no. 

of 8uoh VitRO88.8, 8UOh l mMa8 8br11 k fild in the UU 

UM8C b8 008t8 in fblOnJ ~8678.” 

It follovr thereiors, 8nd you 8rv 80 bdvlred 

that you &re l thorl;ed by Uv to py the vhvrlff'8 CO848 
Honorable George H. Shappard, pge 2 

in que8tion out of the judiciary l ppropri4tioa set aside 

for the wy8hSQt Of 8hWlff8 aO8t8 in fSlOily COSe8. 

We return hsrevlth the sharlli'r certificate. 

Very truly your8 

ATTORHEI[ OBXE?tAL OF TEXAS 

U ‘-. Elbirt lioowr
#### In the Matter of Julius Pam, Petitioner, against Robert C. Weaver, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

November 14, 1957.

*Lewis & Lewis*for petitioner.

*Nathan Heller*for respondent.

Thomas E. Morrissey, Jr., J.

Proceeding to review the determination of respondent denying a certificate of eviction.

Petitioner sought possession of a four-room rear apartment in subject premises for use and occupancy by the son and daughter-in-law. The latter presently reside in a three-room apartment elsewhere. The application was grounded on the fact that because of the high rent petitioner’s son was paying, the daughter-in-law was compelled to work and that they could not raise a family, and upon the further ground that the son had loaned his father and mother part of the purchase price and that they had promised to rent him an apartment in the premises if he married. The application was opposed on the *1030ground of bad faith and the fact that there was no immediate and compelling necessity. Just prior to the denial of the application by the local rent administrator, petitioner’s son filed an affidavit in which he claimed his wife was then four months pregnant. The local rent administrator denied the application for failure to establish immediate and compelling necessity. Petitioner filed a protest which was denied, respondent finding that petitioner’s son and his wife were adequately housed and that there was no immediate, compelling necessity. The application was based mainly upon the ground of financial hardship, in that the son was unable to pay the rent without the additional income from his wife’s earnings and that by reason thereof they could not raise a family. Financial hardship does not constitute an immediate and compelling necessity but is a mere matter of convenience *(Matter of Goldstein*v. *McGoldrick,*N. Y. L. J., July 9, 1953, p. 53, col. 7; *Matter of Zinke*v. *McGoldrick,*N. Y. L. J., March 17, 1954, p. 7, col. 6).

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the determination of respondent and this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency *(Matter of First Terrace Gardens*v. *McGoldrick,*1 N Y 2d 1). The petition is dismissed.

Settle order on notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
AND 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,035,000                       0
<SECURITIES>                                 2,913,000                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,901,000                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,339,000                       0
<PP&E>                                         129,000                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                (36,000)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,535,000                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,657,000                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         3,000                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,875,000                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,535,000                       0
<SALES>                                      5,358,000               3,420,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,374,000               3,420,000
<CGS>                                        7,917,000               4,662,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,917,000               4,662,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               110,000                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             275,000                 121,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (543,000)             (1,242,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (101,000)               (370,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (442,000)               (872,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (442,000)               (872,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)                  (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)                  (0.31)


</TABLE>