alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1996 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-31-1996

Azzaro v. Allegheny

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 95-3253

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Azzaro v. Allegheny" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 147.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/147
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 _____________ 

 No. 95-3253 

 _____________ 

 BEVERLY AZZARO, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY; TOM FOERSTER, an individual 

 and Chairman, Allegheny County Commissioners, 

 and WAYNE FUSARO 

 _____________ 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Civil No. 93-1589) 

 _____________ 

Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, 

 GREENBERG, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, 

 ROTH, LEWIS, McKEE, SAROKIN, and ROSENN, CircuitJudges. 

 O R D E R 

 A majority of the active judges having voted for 

rehearing en banc in the above appeal, it is 

 O R D E R E D that the Clerk of this Court vacate the 

panel's opinion and judgment dated July 31, 1996 and list the 

above case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the court. 

 By the Court, 

 /s/ Dolores K. Sloviter 

 

Dated: August 30, 1996 Chief Judge
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60185 Conference Calendar

GURMIT SINGH, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A-93-499-484

- - - - - - - - - - February 17, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gurmit Singh petitions this court to review the decision of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum. He challenges the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination. We do not review decisions based upon credibility determinations. See Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Singh’s petition for review is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 184 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 184

     Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States Trade 
  Representative should establish a new position of Assistant United 
            States Trade Representative for Small Business.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 1993

 Mrs. Meyers of Kansas submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States Trade 
  Representative should establish a new position of Assistant United 
            States Trade Representative for Small Business.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION OF ASSISTANT 
              UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE FOR SMALL BUSINESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that the United States Trade 
Representative should establish a new position of Assistant United 
States Trade Representative for Small Business to promote exports by 
small businesses and to remove foreign impediments to the success of 
such undertakings.

                                 <all>
```
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3265 

Eliminating the debt ceiling for a period defined, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 5, 2013 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

Eliminating the debt ceiling for a period defined, 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 ‘‘Fiscal Sanity Act for 

5 the National Debt’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NONAPPLICABILITY OF DEBT CEILING. 

7 Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall 

8 not apply for the period beginning on the date of the en9 actment of this Act and ending 210 days thereafter. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT PRESTON, JR., §

§

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-cv-588-E

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. An objection was filed by Petitioner. The District Court 

reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the 

Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge.

Insofar as a certificate of appealability (COA) is required, considering the 

record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 

11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), 

the Court DENIES a COA. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation filed in this case in 

support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would 

Case 3:22-cv-00588-E-BN Document 8 Filed 04/29/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 42
2

find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1

But if Petitioner does elect to file a notice of appeal, he must also either pay 

the appellate filing fee ($505.00) or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

SO ORDERED this 29th day of April, 2022.

_________________________________________

ADA BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on 

December 1, 2009, reads as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before 

entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a

certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue 

or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a 

certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of 

appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does 

not extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time 

to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if 

the district court issues a certificate of appealability.

Case 3:22-cv-00588-E-BN Document 8 Filed 04/29/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 43
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1999 and Consolidated
Statement of Income for the year ended December 31, 1999, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         5,131
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,906
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    3,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               37,151
<PP&E>                                         40,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          31,109
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       36,003
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,372
<SALES>                                        110,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,671
<CGS>                                          74,707
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  98,518
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                10,296
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,747
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6,549
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,549
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.15



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 10.4**
Independent Auditors’ Consent

To the Directors of United Utilities PLC:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-13182) on Form S-3 of United Utilities PLC of our report dated 31 May 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of United Utilities PLC and subsidiaries as of March  31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated profit and loss accounts, cash flow statements, statements of total recognised gains and losses and reconciliation of movements in equity shareholders’ funds for each of the years in the two-year period ended 31 March 2002, before the restatement explained in note 1(a), which report appears in the 31 March 2003, annual report on Form 20-F of United Utilities PLC.

KPMG Audit Plc

Chartered Accountants, Registered  AuditorManchester, England

9 June 2003
#### TUCKER v. STATE.

No. 25901.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 11, 1952.

Doss Hardin, Ft. Worth, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of the offense of possessing liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area, with a former conviction for a like offense. His punishment was assessed at a fine of $1,000 and one year in jail.

The transcript on appeal contains no notice of appeal, without which this court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MAURIE MOORE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Case No.: 4:22-cv-00201-Y

)

CARVANA, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________/

 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT LOCAL COUNSEL

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Maurie Moore, and files this Motion for Leave to Proceed 

Without Local Counsel and respectfully shows:

1. Eric D. Rogers, attorney of record for Plaintiff Maurie Moore was first admitted to

practice law in the State of Texas on November 6, 2018. Mr. Rogers was first admitted to the bar 

of this court on February 3, 2020.

2. Mr. Rogers was also admitted to the bar of the Eastern District of Texas on February 

25, 2020; the Southern District of Texas on April 24, 2020; and the Western District of Texas on 

November 13, 2020.

3. Mr. Rogers has been constantly licensed to practice law in the State of Texas for

over three years and no disciplinary or legal malpractice action of any kind has ever been brought

against him.

4. Mr. Rogers is familiar with the Local Rules of the Northern District of Texas, has

previously litigated cases in this district, and is currently litigating other cases in this district.

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 4 Filed 04/22/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 16
3

5. While Spielberger Law Group’s principal office is outside of this district, it does

maintain an office in Dallas, Texas. Barring conflicts, Mr. Rogers can appear in this Court upon 

seven (7) days’ notice.

6. Dispensing with the requirement of local counsel would avoid duplication of effort

and spare Ms. Moore unnecessary expense.

PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maurie Moore prays that the Court allow her to proceed

without designating local counsel.

Dated: April 22, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Eric D. Rogers

Eric D. Rogers

Texas Bar No. 24110628

Spielberger Law Group

4890 W. Kennedy Blvd.

Suite 950

Tampa, Florida 33609

T: (800) 965-1570

F: (866) 580-7499

eric.rogers@spielbergerlawgroup.com

Counsel for Plaintiff 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on April 22, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with the

Court using the Court’s CM/ECF system which provided notice to all counsel of record.

/s/ Eric D. Rogers

Eric D. Rogers

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 4 Filed 04/22/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 17
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,786,650
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,657,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,771,928
<PP&E>                                           1,727,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,028,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,626,960
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            74,390
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,344,907)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,028,850
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,197,069
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,355,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 136,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    704,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                704,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       704,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.01
        


</TABLE>
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1773.

Lib. D. D. No. 19. fol. 338.

#### Walter Smith’s Lessee *against*Smith Middleton and others.

EJECTMENT for a tract of land called *Jourdan,*lying in *Charles*County.

The case was this : *John*Smith, by his will, dated the 13th April, 1716, made the following devises *%*(the introductory clause mentioning all his *worldly estate to be disposed of*■) “ 300 acres to his eldest son, and *no*more, in 86 fee, after the death of his wife ; 300 acres to his daugh-» *522“ ter *A.*in fee, 400 acres to his daughter *B.*in fee.” The land so devised contained, on admeasurement, 360 acres more than the number of acres mentioned in the patent® And the quantity devised and described by the will comprehends the whole quantity mentioned in the grant, and the plaintiff, as heir at law, claimed the overplus as undivided, or not disposed of by the will.

*Jening's,*for plaintiff, (short notes,)

Contended, that where the intent of the testator was doubtful, the construction must always be in favour of the heir at law. 1 *Stra.*488. In which case the Court would not supply the surrender of a copyhold against the heir at law. *5 Atk. 10. 2 Fez.*49, *50.*164. *Cro. Car.*369. 1 *P. Wms.*38. A will shall not have, by implication, such a construction as will disinherit the heir. *T. Raym.*453® *Talbot, 157.*

*Johnson,*for defendant, (short notes,)

Argued, that the preamble of a will was evidence of the intention of the testator. *Ca. temp. Talbot,157. 2 Stra.*1020. That things not properly described, or wrong named, shall pass according to the intention of the testator. I *P. Wms.*286. 6Q0. That negative words in a will shall exclude the devisee from taking more, in any manner whatever. 3 *Mod.*45. He also cited 1 *Fez.*121,122. 421.

*Hall,*for the defendant, (short notes,)

Said, the statute of 21 *James*takes away the right of entry, after an adverse possession of 20 years ; and if the circrv is taken away, the right of ejectment fails. 1 *Burr.*119. 1 *Salk.*421. 1 *Raym.*741. He admitted the principle that a possession of a part is possession of the whole, in law, and the law will adjudge the possession to be in him who has the right; but it is otherwise where *523there is an actual enclosure, or an exclusive possession, as there was in this case. *Brozvnh*230. Dame *Petfs*case. Tin. Abr. Disseisin, 82. 8 Mod. 287. That this case was distinguishable from those cases where there was a difference about boundaries. The separate possession, in this case, is under the will in 1716.

It appears that, in this case, a Juror was withdrawn, and persons were appointed to make a division.
Exhibit 10.19  Summary of Executive Officer Compensation  Our executive officers are at will employees. The current base salary for each of our executive officers is:  Paul A. Maleh, $500,000 Monica G. Noether, $450,000 Arnold J. Lowenstein, $400,000 Wayne D. Mackie, $375,000  On February 23, 2010, the compensation committee of our board of directors set the performance goals, target amounts and maximum amounts payable in respect of fiscal year 2010 for performance awards granted under our 2007 cash incentive plan to our executive officers. These performance awards are payable in cash and only to the extent certain performance goals, based on objective business criteria specified by the compensation committee of our board of directors, are achieved in fiscal 2010. For each executive officer, 70% of the performance goals are based on objective business criteria: 40% is tied to net revenue and 30% is tied to earnings before interest and taxes (in each case excluding the impact of our NeuCo subsidiary, acquisitions, discontinued operations and extraordinary and special items, as approved by the compensation committee of our board of directors).  In addition, the remaining 30% is based on specified personal objectives of each officer.  The portion of the bonus determined based on objective business criteria is intended to qualify as performance based compensation pursuant to Section 162(m) of the Code, while the portion of the bonus based on personal objectives is not.  The target and maximum amounts payable to these executive officers under these performance awards in respect of fiscal 2010 are as follows: Paul A. Maleh - target of $800,000 and maximum of $1,408,000; Monica G. Noether - target of $600,000 and maximum of $1,056,000; Arnold J. Lowenstein - target of $400,000 and maximum of $704,000; and Wayne D. Mackie - target of $250,000 and maximum of $440,000.  The amount payable under each of these performance awards may be reduced by the compensation committee in its full discretion.  In addition, the amount payable under each of these performance awards may be reduced or deferred to ensure that the compensation payable to each of our executive officers meets the deductibility limits under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.
; i 07/29/201 0 10:5 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @l008/00 9

U.S

. DEPARTMENT O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N /:; " 2 J 2010

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C

. "• - ^ DQO^^- J I n th e Matter

o f Marcu s Wilson 2009EA15007 8 Judg e No t Assigne d
NOTIC E O F APPEARANC E Complainant , Federal Aviatio n Administration , hereb y notifie s th e Unite dState s Department

o f Transportation , Offic e o f Hearings , andth e Respondent , pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R

. § 13.204(b) , tha

t it shal l b e represente di n th e above-state dactio n b y tli e followin g attorney :

Robert Spitze r Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f Regiona l Counsel 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Telephone : 71 8 553-327 8 Facsimile : 71 8 995-569 9 Al l commiinications , notices , pleading s or document s ar

e respectfull y requeste dto b e forwarde da s follows :

Rober t Spitze r Federal Aviatio n Adminisn-atio n Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 : : J c: 507/29/201 0 10:5 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 12009/00 9

Telephone : 71 8 553-327 8 Facsimile : 71 8 995-569 9 Respectfully submitted , AlfredR
. Johnson , Jr
. Regional Coimse l


## By : W / '^^ZZ ' Dated : Rober t Spitzer 

## 'l a1 5 z: i

Attorne y CERTIFICATE O F SERVIC E 1 hereb y certif

y that o n thi s da

y copie s o f

th e foregoin g Notic e o f

Appearanc e were place di n tli e Unite dState s mail , postag e prepaid

. Certifie dMai l - Retur n Receip t Requeste d addresse da s follows : Marcu s Wilso n 957 5 Upland Stree t Sprin g VaUey , C A 9197 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (Origina l an don e copy ) 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W

. Washington , D.C

. 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Roo m201 4

Date : 

### JU L 

### 1 6 201 0 

### \ ^ ^.e> ^ JoMT^ahe r Mafmgemen

t & Progra mAnalys t Offic e o f Regional Covinse

l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4